Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BANGOR CORPORATION BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement as to the position of the International Settlement in Shanghai?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The position has not altered since my reply to a question on the same subject put by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 23rd March.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister the number of claims for compensation made by His Majesty's Government against Japan during the present war; the total amount involved; and what compensation has been received up to date?

Mr. Butler: Claims have been presented to the Japanese Government for injury or loss of life to members of the British Forces in China, and the total sum claimed, namely £2,420, has already been paid by the Japanese Government. Instructions have also been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Japan for the presentation of claims for damage to merchant shipping suffered during the incidents on the Yangtse on 5th, 11th and 12th December of last year. The precise amount involved in this second category is not yet known, but it is in the region of £250,000. According to my latest information, other claims to the number of 34 and amounting to £7,190 5s. 6d. have been the subject of preliminary local

notification to the Japanese authorities in China.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of the representations made to the Japanese Government in February and renewed during the present month on the necessity for maintaining the integrity of the Chinese Customs and preventing the continuance of the irregular situation which now obtains in Shanghai to the prejudice of non-Japanese trade?

Mr. Butler: I have at present nothing to add to the answers which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) on 24th March.

Commander Marsden: Will my hon. Friend press the Japanese Government for an early reply? Is he aware that there is a general feeling that the Japanese Government are holding up these assurances while their goods go into Shanghai duty free, to the detriment of our trade?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Government have promised early consideration of the representations which we have made to them.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the Japanese Government that they will no longer recognise the Chinese Government at Hankow; whether this will affect His Majesty's Government's recognition of the Chinese Government; and whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's diplomatic representative in China will only maintain diplomatic relations with the Hankow Government?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that the Japanese Government declared on 17th January that they would cease thenceforward to deal with the Chinese National Government. This will not affect the attitude of His Majesty's Goverenment which remains as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) on 8th February.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Under-Secretary please answer the last part of my question?

Mr. Butler: I think that is answered by the reference to the previous answer, which gave an assurance to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY ATTACHES CHINA AND SPAIN.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have appointed military observers in China and Spain; and when were such appointments made?

Mr. Butler: There are no military observers in China or Spain appointed as such by His Majesty's Government. There are, however, on the staff of His Majesty's Embassy and resident in China, a Military Attaché and an Air Attaché, together with an Assistant Military Attaché. The dates of appointment of these officers are 13th November, 1934, 11th September, 1936, and 12th March, 1938, respectively. There are equally Assistant Military and Air Attachés on the staff of His Majesty's Minister at Barcelona, who were appointed respectively on 7th October and 18th December, 1936.

Mr. Davidson: Do the military attachés or other officers report regularly to the Government on the effects of modem warfare, and do they give any guidance to the Government in regard to those matters?

Mr. Butler: I think that these officers can be relied upon to discharge their duties in the manner suggested.

Mr. Davidson: I think I am entitled to an answer to my question. I am asking a specific question. Do they report regularly to His Majesty's Government with regard to the effect of modern warfare in the particular place where they are located?

Mr. Butler: I said that they discharge their duties in the manner suggested. I thought that was an answer to the hon. Member as he suggested the manner.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the Government consider the advisability of appointing a military attaché to General Franco's forces in order to study the offensive?

Mr. Butler: This question has been under consideration.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask where these military attachés are located?

Mr. Butler: In Spain they are attached to His Majesty's Minister at Barcelona, that is, their headquarters, and in the

case of China they are attached to the staff of His Majesty's Embassy.

Mr. Davidson: May I not have an answer to my question? I think it is disgraceful that we should have such a reply as has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister the number of claims for compensation made by His Majesty's Government against the insurgent authorities in Spain; the total amount involved; and what compensation has been received up to date?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14th February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), of which I am sending him a copy. No compensation has been received up to date.

Mr. Macdonald: Are the Foreign Office using pressure to see that compensation is paid?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the House on a previous occasion, many of the claims now under consideration will have to wait until the conclusion of hostilities in order to ascertam the total amount.

Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: Has compensation been paid by the Republican Government for losses to British trade?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister the names of the Governments that have made complaints under the procedure of the Non-intervention Committee and which of these have failed to satisfy the committee that there has been a breach of the agreement?

Mr. Butler: Complaints of alleged breaches of the Non-intervention Agreement have been put forward under this procedure by His Majesty's Government and by the German, Italian and Soviet Governments. In no case was it possible to prove to the satisfaction of the committee that a breach of the agreement had occurred.

Mr. Macdonald: In the case of the complaint by His Majesty's Government, did the Government do what it could to get this complaint substantiated?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. G. Strauss: In order to substantiate a complaint has the Committee to be unanimous?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not clear that the Non-intervention Committee is impervious to all reason and argument?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister what form of inquiry is being undertaken to ascertain whether the steamship "Stanwell," bombed in Tarragona harbour on the 15th March, was the object of a deliberate attack; whether such inquiry is now completed, and, if so, what is the result thereof; and what action he proposes to take thereon?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have now completed their inquiries on this question, and after careful consideration of all the evidence they have come to the conclusion that the vessel was the object of a deliberate attack. The British Agent at Burgos has accordingly been instructed to inform the Nationalist authorities to this effect and to enter a strong protest against this attack which His Majesty's Government must regard as entirely unjustifiable, and for which they must hold those authorities responsible. Sir R. Hodgson has further been instructed to demand an immediate investigation into the incident, and to reserve the right of His Majesty's Government to claim in due course full compensation for the damage to persons and property resulting from the attack.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to take the term "National" as now being the official description of the rebel movement?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): There is a question on the Order Paper about that.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the Under-Secretary's statement that compensation in these cases is not likely to be paid until the conclusion of hostilities, may I ask whether the seamen concerned in this attack are being compensated now, and, if so, from what source?

Mr. Butler: It is not an absolute and invariable rule that compensation must wait until the end of hostilities, and I will certainly bear in mind the point put by the hon. Member.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask whether the "Stanwell" was alongside the jetty or at anchor, and, if at anchor, how far she was from the shore?

Mr. Butler: She was alongside the jetty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the acceptance by the Italian Government of the British formula for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain includes the basic figure of 20,000?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 14th March, there has been no decision by the Non-intervention Committee to publish information of this nature.

Mr. Noel-Butler: Since the Prime Minister assured the House on 21st February that the Italian Government had accepted the British formula, and since the formula is totally inoperative without the acceptance of the basic figure on which it is founded, in what sense have the Italian Government accepted the proposals of the British Government?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will remember that their acceptance was dependent on the agreement of other Governments concerned, and it is impossible to give details, as this matter has not been decided to be published by the Nonintervention Committee.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the French and Russian Governments have accepted the formula, including the basic figure of 20,000?

Mr. Butler: That is a matter which is covered by my answer to the question. The Non-intervention Committee have not decided to publish this.

Mr. Attlee: May I put a question to the Prime Minister? Seeing that he has told us that his conversations with Italy were dependent on the acceptance of a certain formula, how can he possibly deny to this House this information merely because of some private arrangement with the Non-intervention Committee with which we are not concerned?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has not represented accurately what I said. I did not say that our conversations with Italy were dependent on the acceptance by the Italian Government of the formula. I did say that the Italian Government had voluntarily given us that assurance.

Mr. Attlee: That does not alter substantially my point. The Prime Minister has assured us that he had an acceptance by the Italian Government of something; now we are asking what it is, and are told that it is a secret of the Non-intervention Committee. We want to know what it is.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister engaged on these negotiations on condition that there should be evacuation of Italian troops in virtue of their acceptance of the formula?

Mr. R. Acland: What steps are the Government taking to get the Non-intervention Committee together to get on with the business?

Mr. Butler: There is a question on the Order Paper which I shall be answering in a few moments.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not all this bother a sign that General Franco is winning?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the great importance of this question and the obscurity of the answers given, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement showing what steps His Majesty's Government have taken in recent weeks to inform themselves as to the extent of foreign intervention on either side in Spain?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government obtain information from a variety of sources, but I am not prepared to make any public statement of the nature suggested.

Mr. Acland: Have the military attachés been asked for reports, and have the very large number of impartial Press men now in Spain been asked to give any information to the Government as to the state of affairs on the front now?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, we derive information from any source from which we are able to obtain it.

Mr. Watkins: What has the hon. Gentleman done with the information he has received?

Mr. Butler: Studied it.

Mr. Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement to show how the responsibility for bringing alleged breaches of the Non-intervention Agreement to the notice of the Nonintervention Committee is shared between the Government members of the Committee and the officers of the Committee?

Mr. Butler: The procedure for dealing with alleged breaches of the Non-intervention Agreement submitted to the Nonintervention Committee by Governments was laid down by the Committee in September, 1936. The main features of this procedure are that a complaint may only be submitted to the Committee by one of the Governments represented thereon, and that it must be regarded by that Government as being of sufficient importance and as being founded on evidence of sufficient weight to afford a reasonable presumption that, in fact, some breach of the Agreement has occurred. Under the Observation Scheme adopted by the Committee in March, 1937, it is the duty of the officers of the Non-intervention Board to report to the board any breaches of the scheme which may come to their notice in the performance of their duties. It has then been the practice of the Secretary to the board to circulate information regarding such breaches to the Non-intervention Committee, who can of course, if they so desire, debate them. If, however, any Government wished to base a complaint against another Government on information obtained in this manner, it would be necessary to comply with the procedure laid down by the Committee as I have already explained.

Mr. Acland: As the Minister told us in answer to an earlier supplementary question that the Committee has to be unanimous on these reports, is it not known in advance that the whole of that procedure is a farce?

Mr. Cocks: May I ask whether ordinary diplomatic action cannot be taken outside the Committee, or is the Foreign Office procedure completely abrogated by the Committee?

Mr. Butler: The Foreign Office always reserves to itself the right to exercise its diplomatic functions.

Mr. Thorne: Would it not be much better to dissolve the Committee and let both sides get arms in the best way they can?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether his pledge that a general settlement with Italy must include a satisfactory solution of the non-intervention policy in Spain will be satisfied by an insurgent victory in Spain followed by the withdrawal of Italian troops and war material from that country?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House last Thursday, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is generally interpreted as meaning fair play for Spain that the Italian troops should be withdrawn before they have won a victory for the enemies of England and Mr. Lennox-Boyd. May I ask for a reply to this supplementary question?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Nonintervention Committee last met on 4th November and the Chairman's Sub-Committee on 3rd February, and considering the relation of present events in Spain to the policy of non-intervention, he will at once convene a meeting of the Non-intervention Committee or the Chairman's Sub-Committee in order that the present deadlock may be resolved or its causes made known?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will propose that a meeting of the Non-intervention Committee be held as soon as possible; and whether His Majesty's Government will propose at such meeting that a commission of inquiry be immediately despatched to both sides in Spain, with a view to ascertaining the extent of the help in men, aeroplanes and artillery received by both sides from foreign sources?

Mr. Butler: A meeting of the Chairman's Sub-Committee has been fixed for to-morrow. I would remind the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) that under the plan at present

under the discussion of the Non-intervention Committee, it is already proposed that, with the consent of the two parties in Spain, commissions should be sent to both sides to estimate the numbers of foreign volunteers engaged in the conflict. I do not consider that any attempt to widen the mandates of the commissioners would be practicable.

Mr. Cocks: Will the British Government see that, in view of the present situation in Spain, this committee is kept in constant being and meets every week instead of once in two months, in order that either a satisfactory settlement shall be reached, or that the whole principle of non-intervention shall be seen to have broken down?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, it is in the interests of the committee to keep as closely in touch with the situation as possible.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Spanish Government have officially charged the German and Italian Governments with intervention in Spain, does not the Minister consider that it is desirable for the Non-intervention Committee to consider those charges?

Mr. Butler: I have already defined the procedure under which the Non-intervention Committee deals with these charges.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the attitude adopted by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to obtain information regarding the supply of war material and men from Germany and Italy during the present year to the insurgent forces in Spain, he will ask for reports on the subject from the British representative at Burgos, the British Consular authorities in Spanish insurgent territory, the British Consular authorities at Hamburg and other German centres, and from the British Ambassador at Rome?

Mr. Butler: It is the function and practice of His Majesty's Representatives and Consular Officers to report on all matters that may affect British interests; and His Majesty's Government call for reports on specific subjects whenever it may appear advisable for them to do so.

Mr. Cocks: Have not His Majesty's Government called for reports on this particular subject? Will they do so now?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman may rely upon us to call for reports when we consider it desirable.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether this information is given to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of his statements in another place yesterday?

Mr. Butler: I think that Consular officers can be relied upon to do their duty in the best manner possible.

Mr. Cocks: Do not the Foreign Office want information which will embarrass their Fascist and Nazi friends?

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the insurgent authorities in Spain have recently been officially referred to as the Nationalist authorities; whether this is the result of an official decision; and whether a change of policy is thereby indicated?

Mr. Butler: No official decision has been taken on this matter, and the fact that the current term "Nationalist" has been used instead of "Insurgent" does not signify any change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Leach: Does not the Minister realise that so to describe persons in Spain who are conducting a murderous rebellion against a Government with which we are in friendly relationship can rightly be taken by that Government as a slur and offence against it?

Mr. Benn: Can the Prime Minister tell us why this decision has been taken to change the word "Insurgent" to "Nationalist"?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No decision has been taken.

Mr. Benn: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the official answers that are drafted and given in the House have adopted a new term? I am asking him, as head of the Government, why the change has been made?

The Prime Minister: I take it that it is because the term has been very often used.

Mr. Benn: By whom?

The Prime Minister: It is in general use.

Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister give instructions that there shall not be the use of this term, which is ambiguous?

Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement, assurance, or undertaking has been obtained from the German Government as to its intentions or designs in regard to Spain; and whether he will give particulars?

The Prime Minister: It is not clear to me what intentions or designs the hon. and gallant Member has in mind; but if he refers to territorial questions, the German Chancellor stated in the Reichstag on 20th February last that Germany possesses no territorial interests which could have any effect on the civil war in Spain.

Major Milner: Having in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has obtained assurances from the Italian Government, is it not desirable that similar assurances should be obtained from the German Government?

The Prime Minister: They have made declarations.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is that answer in consonance with the announcement made yesterday that 5,000 additional German troops have been landed in Spain this week?

The Prime Minister: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the announcement." There has been no such announcement by the German Government, as far as I know.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to speeding up the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain, the Non-intervention Committee has now ascertained the number of foreigners from the International Brigade who are in General Franco's concentration camps; and will he give the number?

Mr. Butler: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that under the present scheme of the Non-intervention Committee commissions are to be sent to Spain for the purpose of making such estimates, and in advance of that information I have no material on which to base an estimate.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information or reports upon the arrival of the Italian ships "Franca Fasscio" and "Palos" at Seville on or about the 1st March and 12th March, respectively, and of the German ship "Pasajes" at Larache on 10th March; whether, in view of the official statement by the Spanish Government that these ships carried war material, he has received or called for any report from His Majesty's representatives at Seville and Larache, or from any other source which would place His Majesty's Government in a position to raise the matter with the Non-intervention Committee and whether these vessels carried a non-intervention officer?

Mr. Butler: As a result of inquiries which have been addressed to the Bureau of the Non-intervention Board in regard to the movement of these ships, I understand that none of them were in the ports in question on the dates given. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. As regards the last part of the question, the "Franca Fasscio" had observing officers on board on 1st March, the "Pasajes" embarked an observing officer on 13th March before proceeding to a Spanish port, and the "Palos," not having been to a Spanish port, did not embark an observing officer during the period in question.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. Gentleman say why he is always able to give confident rebutting evidence against any charge which might reflect upon the Italian Government but he cannot give positive evidence in other cases?

Mr. Roberts: Were these ships or some of them in other Spanish ports about this date; and has the Minister definite evidence from the non-intervention observers that they were not carrying arms or men?

Mr. Butler: I have obtained information from the Non-intervention Board which describes the movements of these ships. The first ship, which had observers on board, was not at Seville but at Palma bound for Marseilles. The second ship passed Finisterre on 11th March and arrived at Casa Blanca on 14th March. It seems hardly possible for her to have taken the course suggested. I have similar information about the last ship.

Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the intention of the German Government to leave troops in occupation of Spain until her colonial claims have been admitted and settled; and what action does he propose to take in consequence thereof?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such intention. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Alexander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many submarines were in the possession of the Spanish insurgents at the outbreak of the insurrection; how many submarines have passed into the service of the insurgents since the outbreak; at what date His Majesty's Government received information of the acquisition of submarines by the insurgents; and what inquiries were made and on what dates to ascertain the country of origin of such submarines?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): With regard to the first and second part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 7th July last. With regard to the third part of the question, a report was received from the Spanish Embassy on 1st February last to the effect that. General Franco had received two Italian submarines. I am not in a position either to confirm or to deny the accuracy of this report.

Mr. Alexander: In view of that information, have any representations been made to the Non-intervention Committee as to the acquisition of these Italian submarines by the Franco Government?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think any representations have been made to the Nonintervention Committee, but that is not a question for the Admiralty. It is a case for the Foreign Office.

Mr. Alexander: Have either of these Italian submarines, to the Admiralty's knowledge, been engaged in attacks on British ships?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. I am not aware that Italian submarines were handed over.

Mr. Cocks: Would not a reference to the Italian Navy List show whether they had two submarines less?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since these are the vessels which have been engaged in piracy, and since that fact has meant a very heavy burden of expenditure on the British taxpayer, it is not desirable that the Government should endeavour to find out where they come from?

Mr. Denville: On a point of Order. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of the House to take up so much time with Spanish questions, and so little with British affairs?

Mr. Cocks: These are British affairs. British sailors are being drowned.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (LOANS, DEFAULT).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have recently been made to the Brazilian Government with regard to its default upon the service of loans issued in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro has been in constant touch not only with the representatives of the Council of Foreign Bondholders but also with the Brazilian authorities. It has not so far proved possible to obtain from the Brazilian Government a statement of their intentions, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will not relax their efforts to obtain a satisfactory solution of this question to which, as the Prime Minister stated in the House on 14th February, they attach the greatest importance.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Does the Under-Secretary not agree that it is impossible for Brazil to meet her indebtedness to this country if this country limits importations from Brazil to this country?

Mr. Butler: These considerations will no doubt be present in the course of the discussions which are taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Major Procter: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the furtherance of his policy in European appeasement, he will consider the question of Hungarian minority rights in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are interested in and give consideration

to all questions affecting the rights of minorities, which derive from treaties to which His Majesty's Government are party.

Major Procter: Will my hon. Friend give a report to the House on the results of that consideration?

Mr. Butler: I think I should wish to examine the matter first.

Mr. W. Roberts: Will the Government give equal consideration to the claims of the Jewish minority in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Harvey: asked the Prime Minister what measures are being proposed by His Majesty's Government in response to the invitation of the President of the United States of America for international action to assist Austrian and other refugees?

Mr. Butler: The invitation received by His Majesty's Government from the United States Government to co-operate in the setting up of a special committee to deal with the problem of emigration from Austria and Germany is receiving prompt and sympathetic consideration. It is hoped to return a reply at a very early date.

Mr. Mander: Can the Under-Secretary say what countries have accepted the invitation?

Mr. Butler: Not without notice.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will evolve some scheme to offer Jewish and other refugees from Austria, and similarly placed European countries, a new home in a suitable British possession overseas?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The objections to a policy of indiscriminate admission of refugees were stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22nd March. They apply also to the Colonies. Owing to climatic and economic conditions, and to the existence of large native populations, there is no territory in the Colonial Empire where any large-scale settlement is practicable. With regard to


individual cases, the Governors of a number of Colonies have recently been consulted as to the openings in their territories for refugees with professional or business qualifications, or for refugees possessing a small amount of capital. I regret that the replies so far received show that such openings are likely to be few.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not very desirable that we should carry on our traditional ideal of hospitality to these people who are suffering?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, but I would point out that we cannot possibly send people to reside in West Africa and places of that kind.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from memory the number of Jews who have been compelled to leave Austria since the recent events?

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (BRITISH MISSION).

Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the results of the visit of the British Mission to Portugal?

Mr. Butler: As the British Mission to Portugal has only been in that country for little more than a month and is not expected to leave before May, I am not in a position to state the results of its visit. I can, however, say that good progress is being made in its discussions with the Portuguese military authorities.

Major Milner: Is the question of Portuguese assistance to the Franco forces one of the matters under discussion?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MARRIAGE, CHILDREN'S AND LODGING ALLOWANCES.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps were taken to obtain the views of naval officers under the rank of commander upon the naval marriage allowance proposals; whether, in obtaining such views, care was taken to explain the full implications of the scheme; whether any alternative scheme was submitted to naval officers for consideration; and, if so, what were its provisions?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware from the reply I made to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 23rd March, the Admiralty asked Commanders-in-Chief to make discreet inquiries as to the views of officers in their commands. Two alternatives were offered. The first was the same as the present scheme of marriage allowance and children's allowances except for a modification in the case of captains. The second was a flat rate of 6s. 6d. marriage allowance with no children's allowance and the same deductions from pay. The average benefit to the naval officer would have been the same under the two schemes. On the whole, the officers of the Fleet preferred the first alternative.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the fact that the scheme does undoubtedly cause injustices to naval officers, will my hon. Friend make further inquiries from junior naval officers with a view to its possible amendment?

Mr. Shakespeare: I cannot accept the premise on which that question is based.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say how extensive were these inquiries among junior officers?

Mr. Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend, I am sure, does not wish to criticise the efficiency of the Commanders-in-Chief.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am not doing so. I merely ask what was the extent of the inquiries.

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval officers of and under the rank of captain are at present drawing lodging allowance; and how many of these officers are employed in London?

Mr. Shakespeare: The approximate number of naval officers of the rank and relative rank of captain and below in receipt of lodging allowance is 1,500. Of these about 325 to 350 are employed in the London area.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why married officers under the marriage allowance


scheme, who receive such marriage allowance because they are married, are to be prohibited from receiving this allowance when they are placed on half pay?

Mr. Shakespeare: The general basis of the marriage allowance scheme is that officers in appointments in which they are necessarily separated from their families shall be placed in as good a financial position as those in appointments in which they draw lodging allowance and can live with their families. The position of the officer on half pay is not affected by this consideration and consequently his position is unchanged.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Am I to understand that married officers are not being paid marriage allowances because they are married?

Sir A. Southby: Can my hon. Friend say what the lodging allowance has to do with married officers?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I have an answer to my question? It is very important to know?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. We are dealing with married officers' allowances, and I am asking a question with specific reference to this allowance. Surely I am entitled to get an answer. If an officer is married, surely he ought to get his marriage allowance.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole matter very unsatisfactory?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what lodging allowance is paid to lieutenant-commanders and commanders on taking up an appointment at the Admiralty?

Mr. Shakespeare: Lodging allowance at the rate of £80 a year is payable to lieutenant-commanders and commanders employed at the Admiralty.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is this not an allowance specifically paid because no quarters are provided for the officer who takes up the appointment, and, therefore, whether an officer is married or unmarried, should he not receive such allowance? Can I have an answer?

Mr. Shakespeare: I could not answer that question properly without fuller debate, but in substance the hon. and gallant Member is right.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: But if—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am speaking at the moment, and I do not want to be interrupted. Hon. Members do not seem to realise that there are 92 questions on the Paper, and that we cannot make a Debate out of every one of them.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. Surely I am entitled to an answer to a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member has already put a supplementary question and got an answer to it.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a lieutenant - commander appointed to the Admiralty in receipt of marriage allowance sustains a cut of 2s. a day and, in addition, is deprived of lodging and compensation allowance; and, if so, whether he loses or gains by the grant of marriage allowance, and by what amount?

Mr. Shakespeare: A lieutenant-commander appointed to the Admiralty who receives marriage allowance in lieu of lodging allowance will at the same time sustain a cut of full pay of 2s. a day. He continues to draw provision allowance. Whether he gains or loses by the change will depend on the number of his children, but on the average his position would be practically unaltered apart from a new grant of the removal allowance of £40; this is in accordance with the general principle that no change should be made in the average position of the married officer when on shore. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that in order that no officer may sustain an immediate decrease in pay, officers will until their next promotion be given on the occasion of each appointment the option of serving under existing conditions.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the unsatisfactory condition of the arrangements made, will the First Lord take into consideration a revision of the whole system?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding as to the effect of this provision, and I understand that my right hon. Friend proposes to lay a White Paper at the earliest opportunity.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that married officers should receive their marriage allowance because they are married and should receive lodging allowance because quarters are not provided for them? These are two perfectly separate and distinct things, and, therefore, they should receive them both when they are married and when they have not quarters provided for them.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state, under the three categories, captains, commissioned officers, and commissioned warrant and warrant officers, the separate yearly rates of marriage and children allowances to be granted from Friday next, the pay reductions and the allowances to be withdrawn, and the net gain or loss of officers in each grade who are now drawing allowances, including the warrant officers now given special rates of pay to avoid pecuniary loss on promotion?

Mr. Shakespeare: The hon. Member's question cannot be satisfactorily answered except by giving him the complete regulations on the subject. These will be ready in a few days, and I am arranging for supplies to be made available to the House.

MARRIED OFFICERS.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present number of married officers of the rank of lieutenant-commander, commander, and captain?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is estimated that the numbers of married officers of the ranks, or relative ranks, of lieutenant-commander, commander, and captain are 970, 1,055, and 355 respectively.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion that bears to the total?

Mr. Shakespeare: Not without notice.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CALEDONIA" (SICKNESS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information concerning the outbreak of

disease among boys on board His Majesty's Ship "Caledonia"; how many cases have been reported of scarlet fever, middle-ear disease, and rheumatic fever; how many have been removed to shore hospitals with rheumatic hearts; and what steps are being taken to cope with this situation?

Mr. Cooper: The number of cases of scarlet fever and rheumatic fever that have occurred among boys in his Majesty's Ship "Caledonia" since 10th May, 1937, when the first entries were made, are 74 and 31 respectively. The number of cases of middle-ear disease to 31st December, 1937, was 20: since then there have been 30 cases of ear trouble, but how many of these were middle-ear disease is not known. I am obtaining the information and will communicate it to the hon. Member. Seven boys suffering from rheumatism with heart complications have been sent to civil hospitals on shore. These numbers are not greater than are to be expected periodically in institutions of the type and size of His Majesty's Ship "Caledonia," and at the present time the amount of sickness there is declining. The position is being carefully watched, and all the usual precautions to limit the spread of infectious disease are in force.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very grave concern that is being felt by the families of these lads—is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for instance, that a mother gets a message that her boy has been sent home in an ambulance, and another writes to say that she is in a terrible state of distress because of the condition her boy has come home in—will he not put an end to this "Caledonia," which is a death ship, and give the boys proper quarters on shore, and give them proper diet?

Mr. Cooper: I can assure the hon. Member that the conditions on the "Caledonia" are extremely modem and up-to-date, and I shall be very pleased if he will take an opportunity to visit it for himself, when I am sure he will be very satisfied. I do not think the amount of disease that has occurred among the 1,000 boys and more would compare unfavourably with any similar institution in this country.

Mr. Gallacher: I shall be very pleased to take an opportunity of visiting the


"Caledonia," but I give notice that, because of the concern of the parents of these boys, I will raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "WARSPITE."

Sir Walter Smiles: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the reasons why His Majesty's Ship "War-spite" took one-and-a-quarter years longer to overhaul at Portsmouth Dockyard than she did to build at Devonport?

Mr. Cooper: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. G. Williams) on 9th February last, the period of construction of the "War-spite" was from July, 1912, to April, 1915 (two years and nine months), and her reconstruction covered the period from April, 1934—June, 1937 (three years and three months). The decision to re-engine and re-boiler the vessel, taken about the time that she came in hand for refit, necessitated the negotiation of contracts for the new machinery, whereas normally the machinery would be ordered in advance of the ship being taken in hand, as has been done in the case of the three ships now undergoing modernisation. This decision, combined with the fact that there was delay in the production of certain items of equipment, prolonged the reconstruction period.

Sir W. Smiles: Are the overhauls of His Majesty's Ship "Queen Elizabeth" and His Majesty's Ship "Valiant" likely to be done in a short period?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, very, for the reasons I have given.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say why the costs of the refitting of the "Warspite" are so abnormally high?

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (ADVISERS).

Sir W. Smiles: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Director of Dockyards possesses no shipbuilding or engineering experience, any other officers with these qualifications have the privilege of direct contact with himself or the Admiralty Board?

Mr. Cooper: While I cannot accept the implication that the present Director of Dockyards is without experience of the

kind referred to, I should point out that the principal advisers of the Board on important shipbuilding, engineering and electrical matters are the Director of Naval Construction, the Engineer-in-Chief, and the Director of Electrical Engineering respectively. These officers have direct contact with all members of the Board and are consulted by the Director of Dockyards, who is directly responsible to the Board for the general management of the Royal Dockyards.

Sir W. Smiles: Is there any chance of the Admiralty recognising the services of their technical officers in the same way as the War Office have recognised the services of Engineer Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown?

Mr. Cooper: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's question. The Admiralty have lent the services of Vice-Admiral Brown to the War Office. I do not know whether my hon. Friend suggests that the Admiralty should borrow one of the Generals from the War Office in return.

Sir W. Smiles: I was only asking in view of the fact that Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown is on the Army Board and there is no Engineer Admiral on the Navy Board.

Mr. Cooper: This question has long been under consideration by the Board of Admiralty, and I am not prepared to make a statement on it at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the position in Malta consequent upon the recent decision in the Court of Appeal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Governor of Malta has reported that final leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by the Malta Courts on 28th March. The petition in the appeal will be lodged as soon as possible. As a stay of execution has been granted no special measures on the part of the Malta Government are required in the interval.

Mr. Williams: In view of the uncertainty created by this appeal case, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite a decision?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think there is anything I can do. The case will come before the Privy Council, and they will hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES (CHIEF INLAND REVENUE OFFICER).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether civil servants were considered for the position of Chief Inland Revenue Officer in the Isle of Seychelles; and whether the gentleman appointed has held a Government post in the past?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as I am aware, Mr. Sauvage had not previously held a Government post. He has, however, been a member of the Legislative Council.

Mr. Kelly: Do I understand that it is the rule there to appoint members of the Legislative Council to Civil Service posts, and why is it that ex-employés of private firms are appointed to these positions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are very few civil servants there. The island cannot afford to pay the usual scale of the Colonial service, and it is the custom to get unofficial members of the community to do jobs of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire of His Majesty's Government to revive the League of Nations and to lend the influence of this country to the revision of relations between nations, which appear to demand review, and in view of the opinion widely held in this country that the decline of the League and the deterioration of the European situation has been substantially due to the undue emphasis placed on Article 16, which provides for sanctions, while Article 19, which provides for the redress of injustices, has been ignored, he will either consider asking for a special meeting of the Assembly of the League in order that grievances and injustices at present disturbing European relations may be considered immediately under the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant of

the League or indicate the methods he proposes for securing the consideration and redress of grievances?

The Prime Minister: As I stated in the House of Commons on 24th March, His Majesty's Government have constantly lent, and are prepared to continue to lend, their influence to the revision of relations between nations established by treaty or otherwise which appear to demand review. They will continue whether by way of action through the League or by direct diplomatic effort to exert all their influence on the side of bringing to peaceful and orderly solutions any issues liable to interrupt friendly relations between nations. I have at present nothing to add to this statement, and I do not consider that any useful purpose will in present circumstances be served by convoking a special meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (GENERAL STAFFS, CONTACT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of initiating staff conversations between Great Britain and France, with a view to making precise military arrangements for joint action in any eventuality where this may be required in accordance with the close understanding existing between the two nations?

The Prime Minister: Provision was made in the arrangement drawn up in London on 19th March, 1936, and in notes exchanged on 1st April, 1936, all of which have been laid before Parliament, for contact to be established between the two General Staffs with a view to arranging the technical conditions in which the obligations of the Locarno Treaty should be carried out in case of unprovoked aggression. At the same time, it was understood that this contact could not give rise in respect of either Government to any political undertaking or to any obligation regarding the organisation of national defence. Contact accordingly took place in April, 1936, and it was then arranged, and publicly stated, that other necessary technical information would be transmitted through the channel of the Service attachés in the two capitals.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that provisional technical arrangements for joint action between the two countries are being kept up to date?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGGRESSION.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will call together all the self-governing parts of the Empire to get their opinion respecting the appeal to be made that all the nations should meet to consider what stand should be made if one country encroaches on another?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I understand exactly what the hon. Member has in mind, but, as I have already stated, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom keep in close touch with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions on all important aspects of the present international situation. As regards a meeting of all the nations, I cannot add anything to what I said in this House on 24th March.

Mr. Tinker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman making a mistake in not taking advantage of the present situation instead of waiting until another crisis arises, because throughout the country there is a feeling that something should be done before an eventuality arises?

The Prime Minister: All those points are kept in mind.

Sir Ronald Ross: In view of the fact that the Government of Eire has acknowledged the Italian conquest of Abyssinia and is very anxious—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC RESOURCES (ORGANISATION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to set up a planning committee representative of the industrial, commercial, financial and scientific interests of the country, for the purpose of advising the Government on economic and other problems in relation to Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave

to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 4th November, 1937.

Mr. Adams: Has the Prime Minister taken into consideration the question of setting up such a planning committee?

The Prime Minister: The answer to which I have referred said there was no necessity for any such elaboration as the hon. Member proposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee of Members of this House, representative of unofficial opinion on all sides, to consider the advisability of framing a programme of foreign policy and defence that would be likely to command general support?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister look with favour on any unofficial attempts to secure national unity on foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: I am not encouraged by what I have seen of such attempts.

Mr. Alexander: Is the Prime Minister aware that since 14th March the Government seem to have looked upon all attempts to get unity on foreign policy with complete contempt?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will not state the attitude of the Government to the recommendations in the Falmouth Committee's report upon oil from coal, especially in relation to the Scottish shale-oil industry?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I appreciate the desire of the hon. Gentleman and of the House generally to be informed as soon as possible of the attitude of the Government towards this report. Good progress is being made in the consideration of the Committee's recommendations. They raise a number of important issues, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's decision on them.

Mr. Mathers: Can the Minister give any indication when he may be able to answer such a question more fully?

Sir T. Inskip: I cannot give any indication at the present time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no time is being lost in this examination.

Mr. Batey: May I ask the Minister whether the committee, when they are considering that report, will consider it with the intention of starting as soon as possible in the distressed areas plant for the extraction of oil from coal?

Sir T. Inskip: The report is not being considered by a committee, but it is being considered in the different Departments which are concerned with the recommendations in the report.

FLAX.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the inter-departmental committee on the supply of flax, from the Defence point of view, has yet made any recommendations with the object of encouraging an increased supply of this raw material from within the United Kingdom?

Sir T. Inskip: No, Sir. I am, however, advised that the Inter-departmental Committee is at present in the process of drafting its report.

RE-ARMAMENT (ACCELERATION).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take in order to expedite re-armament; and whether greater co-ordination of supply is proposed?

Sir T. Inskip: As regards the first part of the question a number of plans for accelerating building works and deliveries of machine tools and for securing additional skilled labour are either under consideration or are being put into practice, but it would be premature to attempt to make a statement regarding them at this juncture. As to the second part, continuous attention is given to co-ordination in the matter of supply with a view 10 obtaining the best results.

Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is seeking to enlist the services of a large number of manufacturing companies

which will appreciate work on rearmament, but have not so far been able to get it?

Sir T. Inskip: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the fullest anxiety is felt with regard to the possibility of using every firm which is capable of doing armament work.

Mr. Louis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has in his Department or in the Service Departments liaison officers to keep the fullest contact with industry in order to get from industry a far better result?

Sir T. Inskip: If my hon. Friend means supply officers, I am satisfied that there is every possible help in this connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the International Sugar Council last met; when it is expected to meet again; and whether, in view of the fall in the value of sugar since the completion of the international sugar agreement, he will take steps to expedite a meeting of the council with a view to disposing of the uncertainty which the present delay has caused?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The last meeting of the International Sugar Council took place on 4th. 5th and 6th October, 1937. A communiqué has now been issued stating that the next meeting will be held in London on 27th April; the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest information received from His Majesty's representative in the British West Indies as to the present position of the cane-sugar industry there; and what is the condition of unemployment in those Colonies?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am continuously receiving reports from the Governors of the many sugar-producing Colonies in the West Indian area regarding the current position of the local sugar industries, and I have also received reports on the subject of unemployment in those Colonies, but I fear that it is impossible to summarise them within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many of those factories have closed down in the last three years?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the hon. Member will say which island I will try to get him the facts.

Mr. Riley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report indicates an increase of unemployment in the West Indies?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, not recently. Of course there has been a considerable fall in the price of sugar.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. VINCENT (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the Ordinance repealing the Masters and Servants Act in St. Vincent; whether the provision making offences arising out of labour contracts punishable criminally has been repealed; and what are the new regulations regarding the payment of wages?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: St. Vincent Ordinance No. 16 of 1937, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House, prescribes the manner and time of payment of wages. It also repeals the old Masters and Servants Act which contained penal sanctions for offences arising out of labour contracts. The Ordinance provides that labourers' wages shall be paid in money and not otherwise at intervals not exceeding a fortnight, without deductions except for money advances on account of wages.

Mr. D. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the recent ordinance in the island of St. Vincent providing for the appointment of a labour commissioner; whether such official has been appointed; and what are his functions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: A labour commissioner was appointed in St. Vincent last year. In addition to the duties specified in the ordinance referred to by the hon. Member, this officer is required to investigate all matters directly or indirectly concerned with labour conditions in the Colony and to make recommendations to Government for their improvement; to

inquire into and wherever possible settle disputes and grievances; to endeavour to provide employment for those unable to obtain work and to relieve cases of genuine distress; and to collect statistics regarding the amount of employment and unemployment. The total population of St. Vincent is about 48,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE PARTITION COMMISSION.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the name of the fourth member of the Palestine Commission?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. The fourth member of the Palestine Partition Commission will be Mr. Thomas Reid, C.M.G. Mr. Reid entered the Ceylon Civil Service in 1905. He was appointed mayor and chairman of the Municipal Council of Colombo in 1919 and labour controller in 1925. He was subsequently selected for special duty in connection with the introduction of the new Ceylon Constitution. Since his retirement in 1931 he has served as special Financial Commissioner in the Seychelles Colony and as chairman of the League of Nations Commission charged with the organisation and superintendence of the elections in the Sanjak of Alexandretta.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the proposal to amalgamate certain departments in Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and whether he intends to take action along those lines?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the hon. Member is aware, a Royal Commission has been appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, form of closer co-operation or association between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland is desirable and feasible. I cannot anticipate the findings of the Royal Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (HOUSING).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to ensure that houses to be


constructed according to the new building scheme in Trinidad shall conform at least to the £135 standard?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The design of houses built in Trinidad is governed by existing legislation, in which certain minimum permissible standards are laid down. I understand that the cost of a type of house which would conform to these standards has been roughly estimated at approximately £135.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is some agitation against the proposal to build houses of this type, and will he use his influence or take steps to prevent any lowering of the standard of the houses?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is no suggestion in recent legislation of a lowering of the standard. The cost of houses must vary, and in a tropical country there is not the same necessity for chimneys.

Mr. Sorensen: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is some agitation in the district in the direction of getting a much cheaper type of house, on the ground that £135 is too much for a house of this kind?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not heard anything of that. Such information as I have suggests if anything that the standard should be raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can furnish the House with the text of the agreement concerning British Somaliland concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government on 27th January, 1937?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The question of publication is under consideration. When the views of the Italian Government have been obtained I shall be in a position to make a definite statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that under the Covenant of the League of Nations no international engagement is binding until it has been published and registered?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. This is a temporary arrangement regarding practical arrangements for the customary transit trade across the frontier, and I do not think any international obligations arise.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If there are relations between the two Governments concerning the trade between the two territories, surely that is an international engagement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, if it were in the nature of a commercial treaty; but you cannot have two countries with a common land frontier without at any rate some practical arrangement as to what is to happen on that frontier.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY QUESTIONS.

Sir M. Sueter: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we have not reached any of the Air Questions to-day? A Minister has been appointed specially to deal with Air Questions, but it does not seem to be much use appointing him if we are not able to put the questions.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that Questions have gone too slowly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 132.

Division No. 152.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Boulton, W. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Porlsm'h)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Assheton, R.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Bull, B. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Blair, Sir R.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Balniel, Lord
Bossom, A. C.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.




Burton, Col. H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Butler, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Caitland, J. R. H.
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cary, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cazatet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Richards, G. W. (Skipton)


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R, (Blackpool)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Christie, J. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Colman, N. C. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
Sandys, E. D.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lewis, O.
Savery, Sir Servington


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Selley, H. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Simmonds, O. E.


De la Bère, R.
Lyons, A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dodd, J. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Doland, G. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Donner, P. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smithers, Sir W.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
McKie, J. H.
Somerset, T.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duggan, H. J.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maitland, A.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Eckersley, P. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spens, W. P.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, S. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Elmley, Viscount
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Storey, S.


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tate, Mavis C.


Fleming, E. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Touche, G. C.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Goldie, N. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Granville, E. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Patrick, C. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peake, O.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peat, C. U
Wells, S. R.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Petherick, M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pilkington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Porritt, R. W.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Harbord, A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hartington, Marquess of
Procter, Major H. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Harvey, Sir G.
Radford, E. A.



Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Banfield, J. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, A. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barr, J.







Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Bellenger F. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cape, T.
John, W.
Sexton. T. M.


Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Chaler, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lea, F.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. Graham


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL).

Mr. Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the extension of polling hours at county council and borough council elections.
The object of the Bill is to provide for an extension of polling hours at county council and borough council elections by amending paragraph 3 of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. It is intended to allow an extension of polling hours from 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock in the evening if as many candidates as there are seats to be filled in any ward give due notice in writing to the returning officer beforehand. The present position is that this is already the law in the London County Council elections and in the Metropolitan borough council elections, and that certain county borough and municipal boroughs, such as Barking, have obtained similar powers by private Act. At the present time, urban district councils can extend their polling hours to any hour they wish. It is usually done only to 9 o'clock, but they have the power to extend to any

hour, provided that the council have approved the hours which are fixed. For example, in the county of Essex at the present time, the urban districts of Dagenham, Thurrock and Hornchurch already have polling hours far in excess of those which are allowed to the municipal borough councils. The latter cannot extend their polling hours beyond 8 o'clock at night, and a county council cannot extend polling hours for its own elections although it can extend them for urban district council elections.
This anomaly produces a very real grievance in my constituency. For example, Romford was an urban district until recently and its polling hours extended to 9 o'clock. Last year it obtained a charter and became a municipal borough, with the result that its polling hours are now restricted to 8 o'clock. The charter year, last year, was used in the area to endeavour to develop civic consciousness, and in the elections last year, after the charter had been given, there was an unusually large poll. There were very long queues at the polling stations. A large number of people who work in the middle of London and lived some


way out cannot get home until late at night. The result was that queues formed at the polling booths. The polling booths were closed at 8 o'clock and many people were turned away, and the result was that there were very nearly riots. Dagenham is asking for a charter. Its polling hours now finish at 9 o'clock, but if it gets its charter it will be limited to 8 o'clock, and the same problem will arise there as has already arisen in Romford.
It seems ridiculous that we should have long polling hours for elections for the London County Council, and for the municipal borough councils in the middle of London, but that in outer London, where there is far more need for longer hours, that should not be possible. The Bill would not only remove this anomaly in outer London, but would benefit all areas where there are many people who work a long way from home and come home late at night. In any area where this problem arises a substantial section of the electorate could get an extension of polling hours if they so wished. There are many complaints about the low poll which takes place in municipal elections to-day, and when that happens the Press gets very indignant about it. The Bill will help to remove one of the causes of a low poll. In conclusion, I would say that this Bill is not intended to be a party Measure in any way. Of the two towns I have mentioned, Romford has a Conservative majority and Dagenham a Labour majority, yet all the members of both councils unanimously support the Bill.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker and Mr. George Griffiths.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL,

"to provide for the extension of polling hours at county council and borough council elections," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

CONTRACEPTIVES (REGULATION).

Mr. R. J. Russell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the public display in shops of contraceptives and matter descriptive thereof,

to prohibit street trading in such articles, and to restrict the public advertisement thereof.
This Bill has been in the hands of Members during the last day or two, but I realise that Members are so flooded with requests to digest one document and another in these days that it is hardly likely that every Member has had time carefully to study this Bill. So in the very short time available I shall try to enumerate what are the proposals of the Bill. First of all I think all hon. Members must be aware of the development which has taken place throughout the country, and very largely in Metropolitan areas, of publicity with regard to contraceptives and their display and sale. I suppose that if anyone wants to secure contraceptives the direct way to do it is to go to a chemist's shop and ask for what you want and you will be supplied. In inquiring how many chemists supplied these articles I found that of 280 shops only seven did not stock and distribute contraceptives. In addition to this business, there has grown up a very large number of shops which deal in contraceptives only, and deal in them in such a way as to become an offence to a very large portion of the population. In one district alone I found there were 36 of these stores, apart from the chemists' shops.
The general appearance of these shops is well known. If you look into their windows you find certain literature and pictures which are liable to inflame desire, and joined thereto there will be other literature which will tell you how to satisfy desire without risk, and there is offered for sale all the necessary materials and products that are required. In addition to that, there is growing up throughout the country the custom of buying these things through slot machines. Outside chemists' shops, outside factories and other places, men in passing to and from their work can get all they want from these slot machines. Furthermore, there are to be found in factories and workshops touts pushing these articles and giving all the information that may be necessary for their use.
That is very largely the position which is to be found in our larger centres of population. But I am sorry to say that the country districts are now becoming infiltrated with the same thing, and in almost every village there is to be found someone acting as a tout for the display


and the sale of these articles. It is for the purpose of stopping undue display that this Bill is presented. Let me give one illustration of what I mean. A young boy was going along a country lane in a very remote district of this country. As he went along a motor car drew up by his side. He was handed a small packet, and in that packet there was everything that was required for the purpose which was described therein, and in addition there were complete instructions and complete information as to where he could get supplies. It seems to me that that state of affairs ought not to exist in this country.
In another part of the Bill we limit the age for notification and sale to individuals. The limit is 18 years. That is to say, if a dealer should attempt to send these things or information about them to unmarried persons under 18, he would be guilty of an offence. But there is nothing in the Bill which will stop the sale of contraceptives to those who need them, either by chemists or other stores conducted in a proper manner. Let me conclude with an indication of the sort of thing that goes on at the present time. Some four or five years ago I was in a certain country village. I got the impression that the place could do with a clean up. I saw the vicar and told him of my impression. He said, "You as a visitor can see on the surface things which I am sorry to say are all too true in our village life, and if you knew the conditions which prevail in this village you would be more concerned still." The outcome of that conversation was that, first of all, we agitated and got a new water supply, so that every house could be properly cleansed. Secondly, we got a new sanitation system. Thirdly, we renovated the houses in that village. My point is this: We desire as a people that we shall be virile and healthy. We take what action we think is necessary in social reforms, but side by side with that it is essential that we should safeguard our young people against undue influences about things which are neither healthy nor socially sound.

Mr. Thurtle: I wish to oppose the Motion, partly on libertarian grounds and partly because I believe that a private Member is not the right person to bring in such legislation. I do not know how extensive this evil may be, but if it is a real evil, it is one that ought to be dealt

with by the Department concerned, which is the Home Office. It is not the business of a private Member to take away the existing rights of private citizens, without possessing the necessary information, and such information must be in the Home Office. We have to remember that the practice of birth control in this country, whether we like it or not, is very widespread, and while no one wishes to see advertisements regarding birth control put out in an offensive manner, or what is called contraceptive equipment exposed in an offensive manner, at the same time we must recognise that this is lawful information for the men and women of the country, and we ought not to make it unduly difficult for them to get that information and the necessary equipment.
It seems to me that the people who complain in this way of the birth control advertisements and the exposure of birth control equipment are people who are really looking for trouble. They go out of their way to read these advertisements; they go out of their way to peer into the shops where these things are exposed to sale. If they do not want to read these advertisements, if they do not want to see these objectionable things, they need not look at them. Let me reinforce my argument with a short story. I once heard of a lady who objected because the gentleman who was living in the room opposite her in the street was alleged to undress without proper discretion. She complained to the police of this practice and a policeman went to her house to investigate the complaint. She said to him, "I will demonstrate the sort of exhibition to which I am subjected," and she took him up into her room. He looked across the road and eventually said, "I cannot see anything objectionable." She replied, "No, but if you get on the chair you will." It does seem to me that those who object to these advertisements and the exposure of this equipment are in very much the same position. I beg the House not to allow a private Member to undertake the promotion of legislation of this kind. If there is a case for it, for dealing with really offensive advertisements or offensive exposure of goods, I would certainly support such legislation, but I contend that the Home Office is the proper Department to sponsor such legislation.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. R. J. Russell, Sir Francis Fremantle, Sir Joseph Leech, Sir Henry Morris-Jones, Major Neven-Spence, Dr. Salter, Dr. Howitt, Sir George Hume, Sir John Haslam, Sir Patrick Hannon, Viscountess Astor, and Mr. Magnay.

CONTRACEPTIVES (REGULATION) BILL,

"to regulate the public display in shops of contraceptives and matter descriptive thereof, to prohibit street trading in such articles, and to restrict the public advertisement thereof," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

Cinematograph Films Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Cinematograph Films Bill, to which this House has disagreed.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the West Surrey Water Company to take additional water from the River Thames; and for other purposes." [West Surrey Water Bill [Lords].

WEST SURREY WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRADFORD EXTENSION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.

So much of the Lords Message [29th March] as requests the attendance of Sydney Frank Markham, Esquire, considered.

And Mr. Markham, in his place, having consented, leave given.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on working of coal vested in statutory undertakers.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, coal the fee simple in which is at the commencement of this Act vested in statutory undertakers (that is to say, a local authority, company or other body or person authorised by or under an Act of Parliament, or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, to construct, work, or carry on a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, sewage disposal, or other public undertaking), having been acquired, under powers in that behalf conferred by any such Act or order as aforesaid, for the purposes of their undertaking, shall vest in the Commission subject, in addition to the matters mentioned in Subsection (4) of Section four of this Act, to the restriction that the coal shall not be worked without the previous consent in writing of the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested.

(2) The foregoing Sub-section shall not apply to any such coal as aforesaid in a case in which the undertakers are not at the commencement of this Act interested in any land supported thereby, and, where any such coal as aforesaid vests in the Commission subject to the restriction aforesaid, the restriction shall have effect so long only as the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested are interested in land supported thereby.

(3) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall not apply to any such coal as aforesaid which is subject at the commencement of this Act to a coal-mining lease.

(4) A restriction imposed by this Section shall not have effect in relation to working carried on in exercise of a right subject to which the coal in question vests in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act.

(5) A consent in relation to a restriction imposed by this Section shall not be unreasonably withheld, but this provision does not preclude the right of undertakers whose consent is sought—

(a) to give consent subject, as far as may be reasonably requisite, to a condition that working shall not be such as to let down any land in which the undertakers are interested, or shall be limited to working in particular places or in a particular manner, or to other conditions or limitations as regards the working consented to or the making good, or paying proper compensation for, damage arising therefrom; or
(b) to require, as a condition of consent, payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with the consent.

Any question arising under this Sub-section shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, who shall have power to dispense with consent either without conditions or limitations or subject to any such conditions or limitations as aforesaid, la determining any such question the Railway and Canal Commission shall have regard primarily to the safety and efficient working of the undertaking in question.

(6) A restriction imposed by this Section shall be enforceable by the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested in the like manner, and against the like persons, as if it had been imposed by a covenant entered into by the Commission on the vesting date.

(7) A holding subsisting in coal that is to vest in the Commission subject to a restriction imposed by this Section shall (notwithstanding the provisions of Section seven of this Act which require the value of a holding to be ascertained by reference to the amount which it might have been expected to realise if this Act had not been passed) be valued as if provision had been made before the valuation date for that restriction to take effect on the vesting date.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.17 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause has been put down in fulfilment of some pledges which were given by my right hon. Friend on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), dealing with the position of statutory undertakers and other allied undertakers who have bought coal in order that they might have support for the surface on which they carry on their undertakings, and whose position is, of course, affected by the present Bill. The complaint which was made, and which was made on an earlier Amendment supported by Members in all parts of the House, was that, under the Bill, not only did that coal vest in the Commission, but the Commission would have the right to work it, and the statutory undertakers could only get protection by themselves going to the Railway and Canal Commission and raising an objection. It was suggested that, if I may so put it, the boot should be on the other leg, that is to say, that the statutory undertaker should have the primary right to say that the coal should not be worked, and that if the Commission came to the conclusion that it ought to be worked, and there was no reason why it should not be worked, the onus should be on them to go to the Railway


and Canal Commission and satisfy that court that the statutory undertaker was unreasonably withholding his consent. This Clause substantially carries out that undertaking, and deals also with some minor matters of a collateral character which have to be dealt with.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: In thanking the Government for putting down this Clause, I should only like to add one observation. A somewhat paradoxical situation arises out of the Bill, namely, that the statutory undertakers referred to, who have purchased coal for the purpose of maintaining the safety of their undertakings, are in a somewhat less favourable position under the Bill than if they had not purchased the coal, but had merely taken steps to sterilise it. That is a source of some difficulty, but I think there is general agreement that for practical purposes it is met by the proposed new Clause, and more especially by those parts of the Clause which embody the Amendments that were put down on behalf of the statutory undertakers. Although they feel that the position is somewhat paradoxical, I think there is a general feeling that the Clause as now drawn will in practice and in effect meet the main object which they have in mind, namely, the protection and safety and effective working of their undertakings.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I had the privilege of raising this question, which is fairly well met by the proposed new Clause, on behalf of the Tyne Improvement Commissioners, who are large owners of coal which they have deliberately purchased for the purpose of maintaining their various undertakings. An undertaking was given in Committee that this matter would have the consideration to which it was undoubtedly entitled. It seems to me, and I think to others who raised the matter on behalf of railways and so on, that the objections raised have been satisfactorily met. The interests of the Tyne Improvement Commission are safeguarded by the Clause, and I thank the Minister for it.

4.23 p.m.

Sir Reginald Clarry: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new

Clause, in line 46, to leave out Subsection (7).
I move this Amendment mainly to obtain some explanation of the provisions of Sub-section (7), or, if, as we feel is possible, there has been a drafting oversight, to get it rectified. It would seem that the Commission can override the objections of a statutory authority and acquire coal under the land of that authority, and that that coal may in fact be worked, whereas the basis of the valuation of the coal is the assumption that it will not be worked. There appears to be some contradiction in this. We have not attempted to put down an Amendment to correct that apparent contradiction, but we think that an explanation might be useful.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
While I am grateful to the Government so far as the Clause as a whole is concerned, I must say I find it difficult to understand the precise significance of Sub-section (7). As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, apparently the statutory undertakers are to have this coal paid for on the basis that it remains as a support, and never yields any revenue, or, in other words, that it is to be paid for on the assumption that it is sterilised. But later on, payment having been made on that basis, it may be that permission will be given to work the coal, in which event the Commission will draw royalties in respect of something for which they have not paid, and to that extent the people who originally bought the coal will receive inadequate compensation. That is how I read Sub-section (7). I have been through it about four times, and it is still not very clear to me, though I have no doubt that the legal gentlemen in due course, and on receipt of adequate fees, will be able to explain to the court what it means. If it means what I think it means, I do not think it is quite fair, and I hope the matter will be made a little more clear to us.

4.26 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I will do my best to explain the matter. Under the Bill, this coal, with other coal, vests in the Commission. Everybody is agreed about that, and, although my hon. Friend thinks he detects a certain


illogicality in the position, he is more or less reconciled to it. That being so, the coal has to be paid for now. The coal vests in the Commission on the basis of its present value, and in the case of, I should say, 99, or perhaps even 99.9 per cent. of this coal, it will be quite clear that under the provisions of the Clause it never can be worked, and never will be worked. Therefore it has no value as coal, but is simply a support, as though it were ordinary earth instead of coal. But, in a Clause like this, one has to make provision for possible cases, even though they may be unlikely, and that is why it is provided earlier in the Clause that, if the circumstances are such that it is reasonable that the coal should be worked, and if it is no longer required for purposes of support, the Commission can ask the consent of the statutory undertakers, and the statutory undertakers can give their consent, or, if the Commission think that such consent is unreasonably refused, recourse can be had in the last resort to the Railway and Canal Commission. That being so, the compensation must be assessed on that principle, having regard to the provisions of the Sub-section.

Sir R. Clarry: As if the Act had not been passed?

The Attorney-General: Sub-section (7) includes the words:
notwithstanding the provisions of Section seven of this Act, which require the value of a holding to be ascertained by reference to the amount which it might have been expected to realise if this Act had not been passed.
That would apply to the coal if it had been sold and had not been sterilised. If the Act itself said that the coal should not be worked, clearly you could not give compensation, on the assumption that the prohibition of working was effective. Probably in 99.9 per cent. of the cases there will never be any question of this coal being worked, but theoretically there might be a case where a statutory undertaker had bought coal which was no longer required as a support for the surface, and, therefore, was available for working. If it is available for working and their consent requires to be given, it is right that it should be paid for as workable, and not as sterilised. I think the provision of Sub-section (7) is a right one. It provides for the valuation now

of what in all probability never can and never will be worked, and which is therefore worth nothing, but if there are cases where the sterilisation might not apply, or might not apply to a part of the coal, the statutory undertaker would be entitled to compensation.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand that if permission is given to work this coal later on the statutory undertaking will get further compensation?

The Attorney-General: No; the statutory undertaking has applied for and got the sterilisation of the coal subject to certain exceptional circumstances. As far as one can see, that will prevent anything of this sort.

Sir R. Clarry: Will my hon. and learned Friend be good enough to look into the matter, and see whether he can make it clearer by having at least one sentence saying that there are two bases of value on the two cases arising under this Clause? It does not say that in Subsection (7).

Mr. H. Macmillan: I still and this a little difficult to follow. Does this mean that the coal purchased by the statutory undertaking, since it is to be sterilised permanently, is to be valued at nil? I am told that in the past considerable sums have been paid in some cases for this coal, where the operation has been by conveyance rather than by sterilisation. If this is to be valued at nil, because of the restrictions of the new Clause, that raises rather a new point, and coal for which considerable sums have been paid is taken at no value. But perhaps I misunderstood.

The Attorney-General: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. I quite agree that these workings sometimes cost a good deal to buy, but they are worth nothing as long as they are required for the purpose of support. The basis of valuation must be the value in the market. If it is bought never to be worked, it is worth nothing to the statutory undertaking, and nothing will be paid for it.

Mr. Macmillan: Unless it is worked?

The Attorney-General: Unless it is worked.

Sir R. Clarry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to inspection and copies of Commission's plans of working.)

Any person who satisfies the Commission that he is interested in land that is supported by coal, or that was before the working thereof supported thereby, shall be entitled, upon making an application to the Commission and payment of such reasonable fee as may be prescribed in that behalf, to inspect at any time during usual office hours all plans of workings of that coal in the possession of the Commission, and to be furnished by them with a copy of, or of any part of, any such plan.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause has been put down to meet a desire expressed from several quarters. The desire was expressed that local authorities should have an opportunity of seeing the plans of workings if they might affect buildings on the surface. I said at the time, that I could not consider a restricted amendment of that kind, and that if local authorities should have this privilege, other people, such as builders, should have the same rights. I pointed out that there was in existence a pledge given by the Mining Association, and I suggested that that pledge might be more valuable than a statutory provision of this kind. I think it was clear, from the Debate, that it was the general opinion of those interested in this particular question that they would prefer to have a statutory provision of this kind. We have, therefore, inserted this provision.
There is one other point to which I would refer, although it is not strictly bound up in this Clause. It was particularly raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and dealt with the question of the plans of abandoned workings. Hon. Members know that, as the law stands, it is not possible to disclose those plans until after a period of 10 years. It was suggested by several hon. Members, including the two to whom I have referred, that under these new

conditions it might well be that that provision no longer applied, or should no longer be retained. I promised that I would look into it. I have looked into it, and my hon. and gallant Friend and I have both come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary now, in the new conditions, by which the Commission is the owner of all the coal, to retain a provision of this kind. Unfortunately, it is also clear that the Amendment cannot be effected in this Bill, but it will be done when opportunity offers. If I might make the suggestion, I think a provision of this kind is not at all unsuitable for a private Member's Bill, which, if it were introduced, would receive the support of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, and might be the most expeditious way of bringing this about.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will the Commission be paid for allowing these plans to be inspected?

Mr. Stanley: The Commission will charge reasonable costs which they incur by disclosing these plans.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to meet Members on this side in respect of the plans of abandoned mines. Since he has been good enough to refer to the other matter, although it is not strictly appropriate to the Clause under review, and has given an assurance that if a private Member's Bill is introduced he will support it, I wonder whether he will reconsider his decision at a later stage and use his influence to get a Government Bill promoted. It would be a much more appropriate way, and we ought to have no difficulty in getting through what would be, in effect, a non-contentious Measure.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I will just answer that point. I said we will repeal the provision at the first opportunity. Hon. Members know the congested state of Government business now, and how congested it may be for some time. I only threw out the suggestion that procedure by a private Member's Bill might be more expeditious; also, there are times when hon. Members are looking for private Member's Bills.

Clause read a Second time.

4.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel The Marquess of Titchfield: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, after "thereby," to insert:
or in land situate below, adjoining, or near to coal.
This Amendment is related to the two following Amendments in my name—in line 5, to leave out "of workings" and to insert:
sections, records, particulars, or other documents relating to the situation, condition, management, or working,
and, in line 7, to leave out "plan," and to add:
plans, sections, records, particulars, or other documents.
The purpose of these Amendments is really the same as that of my right hon. Friend, but it carries the principle a little further. I think that those who are interested in land and other things should have the same rights as those interested in coal.

Mr. Denman: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: My Noble Friend has moved this Amendment expeditiously and lucidly. There is, in fact, rather a difference between this Amendment and the other two Amendments, but my answer to all three at present is the same. It is, that I do not feel able to accept them. I confess that I cannot at present quite see what is the point of the first Amendment. We have already provided that anyone who is interested in land which is supported by coal, or was supported by coal before working, should have this right, and I do not see the point of this very indefinite extension, which gives the right to people who, apparently, have no interest in its support, but happen to be very near the coal. Nor do I quite see the reason for extending the privilege to those people who have land which is situated under coal.
With regard to the other two Amendments, which go together, it seems to me that to give to these people who have an interest in land supported by coal a right to inspect every document on the files of the Commission, is going a great deal too far. It seems to me that in giving access to the plans of working we are imposing all that can reasonably be imposed on

the Commission. That is not to say that the Commission, who will be a reasonable body of people, acting reasonably, will not give to people who approach them what information it is proper that they should have, but when we are putting this into legislation we should limit it to those documents which it is necessary for people to see.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Spens: It is true that if we give the right of inspection to those interested in land supported by coal it is really all that is required. But you do not get always nearly merely vertical support. You may have land some distance from East to West or North to South of coal which is being worked, and which is to some extent supported by it. If you own a piece of surface which you believe to be supported by coal, and you go to the Commission, they may say, "Nonsense, we are not working under your land." It is to get over that very difficult and technical point, of cases where an adjoining owner would want to see whether his suspicions are right or wrong, that we want the right given to a landowner whose land may be supported by coal to see by documents whether they are or not. I consider that the wording of the Clause should be altered to deal with this point.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I would say, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, that it has certainly never been my reading of this Clause that it is confined to the actual vertical position above the coal or the working. The support may be, as my hon. and learned Friend says, not only vertical but lateral, and, therefore, people other than those whose land happens to be directly over the working would be entitled to the privileges of this Clause. That has always been my meaning and intention, and if there is any doubt under the present wording whether that is the fact, I will certainly look into it, but my view is that, under the Clause as it stands, the people who draw this lateral support from the coal would be entitled to the privileges of the Clause.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this matter again, as this is not an unreasonable request. In spite of the fact that there is an appeal against abuse, I can


visualise a case where people might be carrying on mining operations that were not covered by the Act, and it might, in the long run, do very great harm if the people carrying on these operations were ignorant of what was taking place. It would be pure common sense, if anyone were carrying out any kind of work on adjoining land, to give that person access to the plans both for his protection and the protection of the people carrying on the coal mine. I can see no conceivable reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, unless, presumably, it is the usual practice that when the Minister and his officials study these Amendments they say, "We do not see why they want it, and, therefore, we will not give it to them." There are sound reasons why the concession should be made, and I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take a different view of the matter.

4.48 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Really, the last reason that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has given seems to be the only really valid one for refusing the Amendment. Looking at the names attached to it, one would imagine that it ought to be refused. But the President of the Board of Trade is wrong in this instance. He gave his whole case away when he admitted that probably these particulars would be given by the Commission, as they were reasonable people, if anybody asked for them, even though they did not come within the terms of the Clause a? it now stands. If that be so, surely, it is reasonable to put them in the Clause. If the Commissioners, as reasonable people, are going to give these particulars in all probability that is the very argument for putting them in. You should not allow the Commissioners to pick and choose between individuals and to exercise their discretion whether one individual was to receive them and another individual was not to receive them. If that is what will probably happen, let it be the right of every individual who has land "situate below, adjoining, or near to coal." A person will only ascertain the facts, which cannot hurt anybody, and he will have to pay for ascertaining the facts. I cannot see that any conceivable damage or harm will arise, and it will enable authorities, landowners and others who are contemplating building and such things,

to see the whole position and whether the workings are likely in the future to come in their direction. It may be that the support is still there, but it may be that, by looking at the workings and seeing the directions of them, one might say, "It is unwise to build here because perhaps in 10 years' time these workings will extend under my land."
That is the sort of think that anyone planning a big building estate, a school or anything else wants to know. He does not want to go to the Commissioners and be told that he has the support, and that nothing will happen; he wants to know what is likely to happen in the future. If he is near the coal workings he can ascertain how they are proceeding. There is every reason that the first Amendment containing the words "or in land situate below, adjoining, or near to coal" should be included in the Clause. As far as the second and third Amendments are concerned, it may be that the words are a little too wide in what they include. Records regarding management may be something which are not wholly necessary, but
sections, records, particulars, or other documents relating to the situation, condition, management, or working
certainly would be material in order to try and estimate the direction in which the workings were going and what would be likely to happen. We shall support the present Amendment, if necessary in the Lobby, because we believe that it is right that it should be inserted.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade taken into account the difficulties that local authorities may experience in this matter when engaged upon town planning? Ought they not to have an opportunity of looking at the plans of the development of coal in their district? I know from experience in my own area that land has collapsed and buildings have been damaged when no coal has been worked at all, and, in fact, when there has been no coal under them. The fall of rock beneath them has affected the land more than half a mile away. It is desirable that the local authority, when planning for the development of a district, should find out where the outcrop is, whether it is proposed to work the coal, and in what directions the workings


are to go in order to avoid future damage by setting back the boundaries of their village or buildings further from the point of danger. As I understand the terms of the Clause it will not be possible for a local authority or an owner of land to insist upon the right to examine plans, unless it can be shown that the land is being supported by the coal. I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has said. It is a matter of practical experience which must be obvious to every Member of the House, that, if you take the support from one point, you at once make a releasing point which shifts further and further away. It is restricting the position far too much merely to give the right to examine when land is being actually supported by coal, and I think that the case has been made out for extending these powers.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. My experience has been very similar to that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I know of many cases where buildings have collapsed simply through insufficient information having been available when they were put up. There is the further point which no hon. Member has mentioned so far, that in many cases it is not known definitely whether there is coal or not under the land. I can visualise a district where big faults may occur which throw the coal measures completely out. In cases like that there may be circumstances in which someone owning a house might not be able to show definitely that there was coal beneath the building. Therefore, the first Amendment ought to be accepted, so that people who have property or land near to coal should have every facility for getting information from the plans available. The whole of recent legislation with regard to coal mining is to try and make these things available, and the more information that there is available the better for all concerned. It is unfortunate to find in coal mining districts buildings cracked by mineral subsidence which could have been avoided by putting them up in other areas nearby. I hope that the Minister will either accept

the Amendment or some form of wording which will meet the views of the majority of the Members of the House.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The combination between my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is so formidable and unusual that it is one to which any Minister must pay attention. I admit, particularly in view of the last two speeches, that a case has been made out for the fact that the Clause, as at present drafted, may be too restricted in its character, and that it might be well that people who cannot actually prove that their land is supported by coal should be in a position to inspect these plans. I am, therefore, prepared to accept the first of these Amendments, subject only to the fact that it may be necessary to see whether the drafting is quite accurate. In principle I accept it, and the Amendment will, of course, be passed. I cannot accept the remaining two Amendments in their present form. It is possible that the word "sections" might be added, and, again, I will look into the matter. I am anxious that all information that is proper should be given, but I do not want to place upon this Commission the duty of showing documents which really are quite unnecessary for the purposes of this Clause. If that, therefore, is the wish of the House, I am prepared to accept the first Amendment, subject to any necessary drafting alterations, but I am unable to accept the other two Amendments, although I will look into them and see if there are any of the extra particulars which are required which could without damage be added to the Clause.
Amendment to the proposed new Clause agreed to.

Marquess of Titchfield: I do not propose to move the next two Amendments.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Persons to act for purposes of valuations, etc., in case of death or incapacity.)

In the application of the provisions of this Part of this Act and of the Third to Sixth Schedules to this Act that relate to the valuation of holdings, to registration or rectification of the register under the Registration Act, or to the preparation of leases or other instruments or of lease consolidation schemes, to


a case in which a person, by or to whom any notice is required or authorised to be given, information furnished, or other act or thing done for the purposes of proceedings under those provisions, dies or is or becomes otherwise unable to act, references in those provisions to that person shall be construed; as including references to a person substituted for that person in accordance with rules made by the Board of Trade.—[Captain Crook-shank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.59 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is purely a machinery Clause, and I think that I owe the House an apology for its omission from the Bill. It is only in order to deal with the case of the claimant, what is to be done with regard to serving notices, and so forth, in cases where the claimant should either become incapacitated or should die during what is a fairly long period of the valuation and transitional stages of the Bill. The House will recollect that the proceedings for valuation involve documents to be served by claimants and upon claimants, and it is necessary that some provision should be made in the case of death or incapacity. It does not necessarily follow that in cases of this kind the proper person would be the personal representative of the deceased. It might be more suitable sometimes to have trustees and the like. The Clause does not raise any issues of novelty or importance.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Sinking or opening of new mines.)

No new mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland unless the owner of the mineral rights therein has first obtained from the Commission an order authorising the sinking or opening of such mine. In the event of the Commission refusing such authorisation to the owner thereof the owner shall be entitled, as from the date of his application to the Commission for such authority, to the payment of interest upon the sum of money awarded to him in respect of his claim under Sections six and seven of this Act as if the date of such application had been the vesting date under this Act, provided that he shall satisfy the Commission of his bona fide intention and ability to sink or open such mine before he shall become entitled to any such payment of interest.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the new Clause is to give to the Coal Commission extended powers of control over mining industry development. The main result would be to convert the Commission from a passive to an active factor in the organisation of the coal industry. Under the powers proposed to be given to them by the Bill, the Commission will have no right of control or direction of the mining industry; it will have such rights only in areas where coal is not yet proved and where coal may subsequently be proved. Most coal undertakings where coal has been proved have already entered into contracts with the mineral owners, which give them the right to exploit the coal, subject to certain conditions. All that happens under the Bill with respect to that position is that those private contracts will remain untouched. The Coal Commission will become the owners of the coal in place of those who now own it, and those who now own it and those to whom it has been leased will be in full enjoyment of the rights which at the moment they enjoy. The Bill does not set aside any of those rights, so that if a colliery owner wishes to sink a pit, in accordance with the rights he has already obtained, from the mineral owner, the Coal Commission will not have the power to refuse him the right to sink the pit, although the Commission will be the owners of the coal which it is proposed to work.
It is an argument for the national ownership of minerals in this country that these powers should be obtained, because by making one owner in place of a large number it would normally result in a more intelligent and more co-ordinated development of the coal industry. Under the Bill no change will be made in the situation. The Coal Commission will have no right of guiding the development of the coal industry. They will merely have to sit down passively, and they can exercise the rights of control only where some area is proved to have coal and it is not known to have coal now. There may be some instances where existing coal undertakings have not obtained from the mineral owners the right to develop their undertakings. Even where that is not so, those instances will probably be ended before


the Bill becomes law, because it will be to the advantage of such colliery undertakings to make contracts with the mineral owners so that they will not be subject to any restrictions when the Coal Commission enter into possession of the coal.
As I have already indicated, the Coal Commission, under the Bill as it stands, will have no power of direction over the coal industry of Great Britain. That is almost weirdly anomalous, because in the Preamble of the Bill one finds that one of its purposes is:
for empowering the Commission to promote a reduction in the number of coal-mining undertakings.
The Bill gives the Commission power to reduce the number of undertakings but does not give them the power to prevent an increase in the number of coal mines. That is an absurd position. If the coal industry had had a separate government some years ago some of the coal-fields which now exist would not have been permitted to be set up. The Kent coal-field would not have been permitted. Some of the developments in the newer coalfields would have been postponed, because many new collieries which are coming into production are having the effect of prematurely and often uneconomically closing undertakings which have not yet been fully developed. That is the case in Durham, in South Wales and in some parts of Scotland where the existing coal undertakings, for a variety of reasons, because they are not in the position to raise new money in the market, because they cannot re-equip their undertakings, have been forced out of production before the coal has been properly exhausted, and also because of the competition from powerful new units which have come into existence in places like Yorkshire and the Notts coal-fields.
I should have thought that we would have had the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House in connection with the new Clause, because it would give to the Coal Commission the power to say to a coal company: "We do not think it is desirable in the national interest that this new pit should be sunk, because it will have the effect of increasing the supply of coal from this part of the country, to the detriment of the supply of coal in another part of the country, where coal measures are not yet

exhausted and which could adequately supply the market." The new Clause would bring about an orderly and economic exhaustion of the coal deposits of Great Britain and would introduce some measure of central control in place of the anarchic developments which are taking place. This country has been wantonly prodigal in regard to its coal resources, at the cost of the development of the coal industry, and the coalowners have been criminally responsible in the way in which coal measures have been developed.
Hon. Members who have had experience of coal mining know that every month, every week, every day millions of tons of coal are being buried in the waste, in the gob, because the coalowners have not been prepared to make intelligent wage agreements with their men. When I was working in the pit I was ordered to throw into the gob or the waste tons of coal of a kind which at this moment is making 11s., 12s. and up to 14s. a ton and more from the steel makers. This sort of thing is still going on in our collieries. In the actual working of the coal mines the colliery owners who are, under private enterprise, the stewards and guardians of this valuable national property, are not developing it in the national interest but have been responsible for the irretrievable waste of thousands of millions of tons of coal. Therefore, in the development of the coal industry, in the relations between colliery and colliery and between coalfield and coalfield, they cannot be trusted to see that the coal measures are adequately exploited.
There is not one hon. Member who is prepared to contend that there exists any body not only with power but with even interest to bring about an orderly development of the coal industry of this country. If you are to make this Bill effective, if you are to make any real stride forward in the scientific organisation of the coal industry, some central body will have to be given the power of co-ordinating development, and there is no body more fit to do that than the body to which you are entrusting the ownership of mineral resources under this Bill. These men when they are appointed will be assumed by the Act to have all the technical and commercial knowledge necessary for the discharge of this function. They are


asked by the duties imposed upon them to use their powers in regard to the coal industry, having the national well-being in mind; but the powers they will be given will be hopelessly insufficient to enable them to discharge that task.
There will be hon. Members who will say that this new Clause is a grave limitation of private rights, that colliery owners have acquired their rights in the coal and that this will be a grave limitation of those rights. There is no body of private owners in Great Britain who ought to be readier to submit to limitations of their private rights than the coalowners. There is no body of property owners who have inflicted more damage on the national interests by an irresponsible exercise of their rights, and there is no body of property owners who are enjoying more advantage than the coal-owners from concessions made by this House, and who will do so by the powers contained in this Bill. We are conferring upon them monopoly rights. They have to a large extent the coal-consuming public in their power, subject to certain safeguards, which hon. Members know are not sufficient. If the colliery owners are going to enjoy those monopoly rights it is reasonable to ask that in return for them they should surrender some of their individual property rights, especially when it can be shown that such a surrender is in the public interest.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give to our proposal a more satisfactory reply than he was able to give when we discussed it in Committee. As things stand at the moment from the point of view of the development of the coal industry, the Bill is absolutely valueless. The central ownership of minerals in Great Britain will have no advantage at all unless these additional powers are conferred upon the Coal Commission. It is very doubtful, unless there comes a change of Government, whether we shall have any further coal legislation for some considerable time, because; these big Measures do not arise for years. This is, therefore, the last opportunity we shall have of arming the Coal Commission with some means of intelligently controlling a great industry, of conserving for the community very valuable national wealth, and trying to bring order into an industry the control of which is anarchic, and which is in the hands of people who have never been able to develop for themselves

that co-operative technique which is necessary to an orderly development of the coal industry.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has moved the new Clause in a most lucid speech, but, as a Welshman, I must call his attention to an omission which I am sure is not intentional, and that is that the country which he and I represent is omitted from the new Clause. Wales is not quite a part of England yet, because we have our own language and characteristics. The new Clause, in our opinion, is essential if the Bill is to give to the Commission powers which it should have to plan the mining industry for the future. When we considered the Bill in Committee I said that the Government ought not to let the Bill go through as it was drafted; otherwise we were legislating to give the Commission power to go about the country closing mines without having power to open new mines. I said that we were giving the Commission power to go about the country depriving people of their livelihood. They have the power, under certain safeguards, to close pits, and the argument put forward is that it is essential that this industry, which has suffered for generations and particularly since the end of the War from individualism and disastrous competition, should be subject to some control. On that the industry is agreed; and we have, therefore, set up the Coal Commission with wide powers to control the industry.
We are making coal the property of the nation and the working of the coal subject to the control of the Commission. If that is the intention of the Government and Parliament, how can it be suggested that the Commission shall plan the industry unless it has a power to open new pits, the power to determine where a new pit shall be opened? Actually we are proposing that the power to open new mines shall be controlled by the Commission who will be responsible to the nation, and whose guiding principle will be the public interest. There is not much power to open new pits at the present time. Under existing legislation the coalowners can prevent a new pit being opened. If there is a body of men who think that a new pit should be opened they apply for a quota, and the owners can refuse to


give them a quota. It is true that there is a right of appeal to arbitration, but, generally speaking, the coalowners, with all their powers, can prevent the opening of a new pit. If that power exists we suggest that the power to determine whether a new pit-shaft shall be sunk should be in the hands of the Commission, who will at all times consult the interests of the industry as a whole.
I do not think there is much likelihood of new areas of coal being discovered. The new pits which will be opened will be in existing areas, and we know from our experience that when new pits are opened they affect existing collieries, particularly the smaller collieries. It may be argued that in the interests of the industry it is better that the production of coal should be concentrated in the hands of larger bodies, rather than in a large number of small pits. That may be a good argument, but when new pits are sunk they are bound to affect the small collieries, and we think that the decision should not be left entirely to private enterprise, but should be in the hands of the Commission. We are hoping that the Commission will introduce some sense and plan into the mining industry, and that it will use its power to close collieries with a good deal of discretion and realise all the social implicatons which follow the closing of a pit. At the same time we believe that the Commission should be given these added powers and that the future development of the industry, the planning of new pits, should be in the hands of the Commission. Without these new powers the Bill will not do much for the future development of the industry.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I hope the Government will not accept this new Clause. It is a little surprising that although it has been drafted by two Welsh Members they have been so careless in the drafting that they have left out their own country. I have always understood that the word "England" included Wales—[Interruption]—and apparently the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was under the same misapprehension. The new Clause is based on the assumption that this magic Commission is in the long run wiser than the people who have for years examined the circumstances in

which they have to trade, and who come to the conclusion that here or there is the right place to open a new pit.

Mr. Bevan: They do not open new pits. What body exists in Great Britain which is able to take into account the considerations which the hon. Member suggests?

Mr. Williams: The people who take the decision are inspired by their own selfish interests, and I contend that that is a much better guide than any considerations which will influence the Coal Commission. I am not a supporter of the Coal Commission. I do not like any part of Part I, and if hon. Members opposite want to make it worse surely I can join the Government in resisting a proposal which does make the Bill worse. I do not think these commissions are ever a success. I do not know one example of Government rationalisation which has succeeded.

Mr. Bevan: The Post Office.

Mr. Williams: That is a monopoly which does not allow anybody to compete. Fifty years ago the London District Messenger Service was set up to carry our letters for a halfpenny, but the Post Office would not allow it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the coalmining industry be a monopoly too?

Mr. Williams: I agree, and that is what I object to. I have been consistent. I have opposed Part I, Part II and Part III, and hon. Members are proposing a new Clause which makes the Bill even worse.

Mr. Bevan: It means the control of a monopoly.

Mr. Williams: This is not the control of a monopoly. It becomes stronger certainly, so far as the monopoly is vested in the Coal Commission. If the new Clause is passed a large number of people will be able to exercise their own decision as to whether they will or will not start a pit in a particular spot. I believe in the long run, that individuals who know the circumstances of the trade, who know the markets in which they will seek for their trade, will come to a much better decision than an autocratic Commission sitting in London. The hon. and learned Member opposite gave us one example of such a commission which he said had proved successful.

Sir S. Cripps: I said there were lots of others. There is the Port of London Authority.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Member took the one which he thought was the best, and as that is not a very good one he now chooses another. I cannot chase him all round the place while he makes up his mind. What evidence is there that this kind of control has ever resulted in success? Imagine what will happen. You have a district where a coalowner desires to sink a new pit in a place where existing pits are being worked out. For some reason the Commission denies that coalowner the right to open the new pit. You can visualise cases where the Commission will say, "No, you must not open a new pit here." In such a case employment is going to be denied to a particular area because in the judgment of the Commission it is better to stimulate employment in another area. That is the kind of thing which will arise, and you will have every conceivable kind of trouble. Are we going to be in a position to interrogate some Minister with regard to the act of the Commission in refusing to give permission to sink a new pit? We have enough trouble now in regard to complaints about the British Broadcasting Corporation, another dangerous monopoly. Many of us have criticised the autocratic powers which have been conferred on the British Broadcasting Corporation, who are able to choose whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) or I shall broadcast. In either case the public would be entertained.

Mr. Bevan: And instructed.

Mr. Williams: Yes, instructed in my case, and entertained in the case of the hon. Member. But that is not the issue. The question is that some body is to have the power to deny to the individual the right to take his chance with regard to the development of an enterprise. That is the point I have in mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the hon. Member and his friends want to open a new pit, who does he suggest shall decide?

Mr. Williams: If I want to open a new pit I have to enter into negotiations with some royalty owner. There are a large number of royalty owners, and they all want to get an income and that enables

me to arrive at reasonable terms. I am opposed to the kind of legislation which seeks to deprive the individual of the right to choose his occupation, or where he shall carry on his trade.

Mr. Bevan: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I think I am entitled to put a point to him. The difficulty about the coal industry is that there is a number of different undertakings having different costs of production. In any other industry, quite properly, the most inefficient undertaking is driven to the wall and the most efficient undertaking takes its place. The hon. Member wants to have the same state of affairs in the mining industry. In that industry, however, the moment the undertaking having the highest costs of production is forced to the wall, the nation irretrievably loses an important asset; the pit is closed down, the whole area is not developed, and probably the pit will never be exploited again. We are trying to secure for the nation the full exhaustion of the coal seams in one pit before the pit is closed down, to the detriment of the nation, in favour of temporarily more efficient pits in another area.

Mr. Williams: I am not unfamiliar with that aspect of the matter. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who is familiar with the sinking of coal mines, knows that the sinking and development of a great modem pit may take five years, and perhaps involve the expenditure of £1,000,000. For the first two or three years of work, the returns are moderate and then for a period of anything from 10 to 40 years there are high profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or no profits."] Even in the most depressed times the mines which are working under conditions of maximum efficiency make money. There is then a long period of decline into old age during which the mine is profitable when coal happens to be dear and unprofitable when prices are depressed; and the result is that the pit goes on for a considerable period after it has ceased to be profitable all the time. The purpose of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is to make sure that a large number of pits the costs of production of which are abnormally high shall be kept in being. Therefore, the net result of the achievement of his purpose would be to raise the average price of coal to the consumer.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has said that his object is to keep pits working after the cost of working them has become extravagant. I am glad that he does not deny that.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, I deny it.

Mr. Williams: In any case, the hon. Member said that if the Coal Commission do not have this power, the pits will close down when the costs of production become high. The object of the new Clause, if interpreted in that sense, is to keep in operation a great many pits the costs of production of which are high; and the effect of that would be to raise the average cost of production of coal.

Mr. Bevan: In the coal-mining industry the costs of production of a pit might be high because of purely temporary geological circumstances which two or three years more working would cause to pass away. It is undesirable that a colliery, at a time when it is meeting adverse circumstances, should be forced out of production by more favourably situated pits somewhere else, and that the nation should irretrievably lose the whole of the coal in that pit.

Mr. Williams: Because the hon. Member's initial argument landed him in trouble, he introduced into his coal mine the geological obstacle of a lot of rock which was not previously there. That happens not only in coal mining, but in slate quarrying, with which I am more familiar. There are times when one works through a difficult part because, although it means losing money for a time, one knows that beyond there are new and rich seams. However, that is not the case which the hon. Member has in mind. Every enterprising person knows that in the development of a mine, there comes a period when there has to be new development, and when one has to incur a substantial amount of new capital expenditure in order to get to the good seams.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Supposing that is impossible because the financial position of the company is such that it cannot raise the necessary capital for development?

Mr. Williams: If the company is in such a mess, it will not be helped if somebody

who has capital is stopped from opening a pit. The hon. Member's interruption was another bad one. I wish that hon. Members had thought out what the new Clause meant before making speeches in favour of it, and had thought out a little more carefully what their interruptions meant before indulging in them. For those reasons, and for many others which I have not time to give, I hope the House will not agree to the new Clause.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) always tries to give the impression that he has a progressive outlook on life, but the fact is that he is still in the nineteenth century, as was shown by his attitude towards this new Clause. The hon. Member said that he was opposed to the new Clause because he wanted the present practice to continue. What has been the practice in the mining industry during the last 50 years? It has not been that the nation needed coal or that it was in the best interests of the nation to work a given pit in a given district; the one dominating question in the sinking of pits has been whether they would give a return on the capital invested.

Mr. H. G. Williams: If the Coal Commission had been in existence 30 years ago, would the hon. Member have wished it to prohibit the opening of the South Yorkshire coalfield until every ton of coal had been extracted from the worn-out pits of Durham?

Mr. Smith: If the Coal Commission had been in operation 30 years ago, millions of pounds of invested money would have been saved. I challenge the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) to disprove that statement. The hon. Member is so hostile to the Government's policy with regard to legislation for industry that I am surprised that he continues to sit on that side of the House. What sort of legislation have we had during the last seven or eight years? The Government restricted the number of spindles that could be worked in Lancashire.

Mr. Williams: I voted against that.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member's interruption proves my statement. I am surprised that he remains a supporter of the Government. If the hon. Member will read the history of the mining industry,


he will find that in 1930 the House placed a Coal Mines Act on the Statute Book because the potential production of coal was very greatly in excess of the demand. Hon. Members who know the history of the mining industry know that the indiscriminate sinking of pits during the last 50 years has been one of the main causes of the distressed areas which we have to-day. Since 1922, there must have been at least 800 pits that have gone out of production. Question after question has been answered from the Government Front Bench to the effect that there has been such a decline in the number of persons employed in mining in this country that to-day, with all the boasting about prosperity, there are 450,000 fewer miners than there were 12 years ago. Looking at the matter from the national angle, does any hon. Member imagine that we can allow anybody to decide for himself whether he will sink a pit, without having some regard for the national interest? There are many Conservative Members in the House and many Conservatives in the country who would have laughed if they had been told 10 years ago that they would live to see a Government of which they were supporters purchase mining royalties for the State. The reason for the Bill is not that the Government have suddenly become Socialist in outlook. The Government do not like national ownership—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member had better get back to the Clause.

Mr. Smith: With all due respect to you. Sir, I was coming to the Clause in the next two or three sentences. The real reason for the Bill, as has been stated from the Treasury Bench, is that experience has shown that the private ownership of minerals has become detrimental to the nation and the mining industry. What use is it acquiring the minerals of the country at a cost of more than £60,000,000 and appointing a Commission, and then giving that Commission no say in the matter of the future planning of the industry? Anybody who talked about sinking a pit at the present time would be mad if he did so to make money. Looking at the future development of the mining industry, we say that before any new pit shall be sunk, the Commission shall first of all give permission. I suggest that if hon. Members

believe, as they profess to believe, in planned industry and in a planned economy, what they have in mind would not be achieved if they allowed the Bill to go on to the Statute Book without some new Clause such as we have proposed. I hope the House will accept the new Clause.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) seemed to indicate that he is against every form of control. I think those hon. Members who are intimately acquainted with the mining industry will agree that the plight in which the industry has found itself over a long period has been due to the fact that the coalowners have held the same view as that which the hon. Member for South Croydon expressed in his speech. During the post-War period, the coalowners thought that they could go on with their competitive methods, sinking pits and cutting prices, and that sooner or later they would be able to restore the industry to something like prosperity. For many years that policy was applied, and the result of it was that many distressed areas were created, where whole villages were rendered derelict. Let it be remembered that it is not only mining capital, but also an enormous amount of social capital, which has been lost as a consequence of the pursuance of that policy. I think I am entitled to say that had it not been for the 1930 Act, the present plight of the industry would have been infinitely worse than it has been throughout the whole of the period in question. I remember very well that efforts were made by foreign countries to get some sort of arrangement with the mining industry and the mining authorities in this country when things were extremely difficult. I remember that Germany sent representatives to this country—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Clause.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Sir. The Clause is drawn in language which is very wide, and Mr. Speaker, in selecting the Amendments on the Report stage of the Bill, has excluded from consideration very many important Amendments which we desired to move. I submit that the powers which it is proposed in the


new Clause to give to the Coal Commission are very extensive indeed, and would change the whole character of the Commission, and that therefore we are entitled to address our remarks to that question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is interpreting the language of the new Clause very widely. The new Clause is merely concerned with whether or not in the interval between the passing of this Bill and the vesting of the coal in the Commission, a new pit may be opened without the permission of the Commission.

Sir S. Cripps: Further to the point of Order, may I point out that the new Clause is not limited to any such period of time? The opening words of the Clause are general:
No new mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland unless the owner of the mineral rights therein has first obtained from the Commission an order authorising the sinking or opening of such mine.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not contend that before the coal is vested in the Commission, anybody cannot open a pit with--out permission?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, every leaseholder has a right to open further pits, and after the terms of the lease are passed, he will continue to exercise those powers. This new Clause does not restrain that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Member to deal with that, but he was dealing with negotiations with Germany, a matter which hardly comes within the new Clause.

Mr. Jenkins: I was attempting to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). The hon. Member argued that he would prefer that things should remain as they have been for a long time in the mining industry, and that there should be no form of control. I will abide by your Ruling, Sir, and confine myself to what I think is a matter of very great importance, namely, that the Commission, when appointed, should have control over this industry. If the Commission had not this control then it would be possible for any body of people—perhaps a body representing industries which consume coal—to organise themselves and make arrangements with the royalty owners to

sink pits and so create a surplus of coal in the market and cause chaos again in the industry. I hope the new Clause will be adopted by the House because I feel that the Commission will be substantially restricted in organising and planning the industry, unless it has these powers.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope the Minister will resist the proposed new Clause. It would confer very undesirable additional powers on the Commission. This House has set its face against the principle of the nationalisation of the coal industry and this Clause is designed to put more powers into the hands of the Commission. I can see no reason for doing so and I think it would be very harmful to the smooth working of the industry. An hon. Member opposite said that anyone would be mad who opened a new mine at the present time with the idea of working it economically and for profit. In my own experience I have been concerned with the opening of two collieries within the last three years. Not only have those collieries been successful but they have had the effect of providing more employment. I can see no reason why that should be regarded as undesirable. I would deplore the necessity of having to go to the Commission and get permission before one could sink a shaft for a new mine.
Recent legislation has tended to give more and more power to government departments and similar bodies to control the activities of industry, and we must view with apprehension any Clause like this which would confer additional powers of that kind. I would illustrate my meaning by referring to the licensing authorities in connection with road transport. To-day if a man wants to put a lorry on the road he has to go to considerable trouble and expense and waste a great deal of time before he can get the necessary permit. I should deplore the extension of that kind of system to the coal industry. I dare say hon. Members think that the Clause as drafted refers only to large new mines which are going to give employment to large numbers of people and produce large outputs. But as the Clause is drafted, any kind of new shaft, even if only for the purpose of ventilation would come within its terms. If hon. Members refer to the definition Clause in the Bill they will find


that before driving a ventilation shaft or an adit it would be necessary, under this Clause, to go to the Commission and get permission. For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will refuse to accept the new Clause.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: When a similar Clause was brought up at an earlier stage I opposed it, largely because of the argument which was then put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who said that the point was to prevent people sinking pits in order to prove their right to get some share of the compensation. That struck me as a very poor argument. But I cannot see the force of all the arguments which are now being used against the Clause. The case is being put now as it was put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)—as if there was some sinister body which was going to be a great drag on the coal trade.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went;—and, having returned;—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to.—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1938.
2. Dominica Act, 1938.
3. Blind Persons Act, 1938.
4. Population (Statistics) Act, 1938.
5. Superannuation (Various Services) Act, 1938.
6. National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1938.
7. Cotton Industry Act, 1938.
8. Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938.
9. Cinematograph Films Act, 1938.
10. Paisley Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Act, 1938.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Halifax) Act, 1938.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Nuneaton Extension) Act, 1938.
13. Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Act, 1938.
14. Adelphi Estate Act, 1938.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Sinking or opening of new mines.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

6.3 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: As I was saying, I support this Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) stated that the Commission would interfere with the ordinary idea of work in the coal trade and with people sinking pits and so on, but the whole idea behind this Bill is the reorganisation of the coal trade. The Commission is set up with the idea of making some improvement in the general layout of the coalfields as a whole, and in fact in Clause 2, which really governs what they are to do, we find that they
shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them … by granting coal-mining leases and otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act. …
I agree that, as it stands now, the sinking of a new pit or mine would be governed by that, because they are in control of their new property, but they are governed by the words "consistently with the provisions of this Act." The way that will work is that, when someone wants to sink a pit, they will have to consider whether it will be a good thing or not, from a purely legal point of view, that that pit should be sunk, while if this Clause is passed, it will make it clearer that they ought to consider the question from a national point of view. As it stands, they have plenty of power in the matter, but they are tied by the provisions of the Act, and not by considerations of the national interest, and I therefore support this Clause.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I support the Clause because of many things that have happened in our own experience. Every mining representative can visualise the closing down of pits, and knows the vast areas of coal that could be worked if only the market had not been overstocked by the opening of new pits. Unless we have this Clause, we can see the opening of new mines in areas where the coal seams are richer, and the argument may be used that it is necessary to develop a new coalfield, overlooking the fact that there are


vast areas of coal that are being left undeveloped where mines are already sunk. I have in mind several areas where I come from in which the mines have been closed down for very poor reasons, but the tale has been, "Oh, we have got into financial difficulties, and we must give these pits up." We claim that if the Commission, set up to protect the coal-mining interests and the national interests, have regard to all the circumstances, they can, before they give power for the opening of new pits, find out, if they are areas that are already supplying, whether they cannot adequately supply the nation's need with what they are already producing. Coal seams are of vast importance, and if once a colliery is closed down and gets flooded out, it is very difficult to get that mine reopened, especially if the seams are a long way in and are not perhaps of the best quality; but we can visualise a time when these seams will be of importance to the nation.
My chief concern is this: It is a question of creating derelict areas, and from time to time Parliament has to deal with this matter. If some forethought had been given to the matter before these pits were closed, these derelict areas would not have been created. Durham Members may speak on that subject, and they can tell the House of millions of tons of waterlogged coal in Durham that ought not to have been allowed to get into that condition. If in the richer coal-fields they begin to sink new pits and draw men towards those pits, it can be seen quite clearly that the other mines will gradually cease to be able to make profits and will have to close down. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) used the argument that we were trying to bolster up inefficient pits. Perhaps, on the strict logic of profits and returns, he is right. If you were creating a Commission to supply the nation with cheaper coal, that argument might be a good one, but as against that it has to be realised that you would be creating a very bad state of things in other parts of the country, and we claim that all the points concerned should be taken into account. That is why we want the Commissioners to have full powers to see that before pits are opened regard shall be paid to all the circumstances. There can be nothing wrong in that.
If the Commissioners are satisfied that, in view of all the circumstances, it is necessary that new mines should be developed, then they will allow new mines to be opened, but we want all the circumstances taken into consideration. If the Commissioners think that by the present system of no planning at all a bad state of things is being created, and that it would be better to have a planned system of gradually utilising all the coal in the pits that are in operation, then we say that it is better for the nation that that planned system should be adopted. We are on the final stages of the Coal Bill to-day. It has taken a long time, and probably we shall not have a Coal Bill before the House again for many years to come. That being so, it is our duty to make the working of the coal system for the future as efficient as possible. It has not been efficient in the past, and we say that our Clause would help in that direction by giving the Commissioners full power to decide when new collieries should be opened. That is why I support the new Clause.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I also support the new Clause and beg the Minister to accept it. I think we on this side may claim to be quite as anxious about the future of the coal-mining industry in this country as is anyone on the opposite side of the House. Indeed, it seems to me that this new Clause is really necessary as a machinery Clause to make the common principles of the Bill itself work satisfactorily. Some of us have very peculiar pictures in from of us in our own divisions or immediately adjacent to them. In my own case, I do not say right in my division, but within a quarter of a mile of it, I have the spectacle of a new colliery which was sunk some two or three years ago at a cost, I understand, in the region of £250,000, and I think I am right in saying that not a single ton of coal has been drawn out of that pit right up to the present time. Having spectacles of that kind right under our noses, it seems to me that that is one reason why a Clause of this kind should be supported.
I do not take the view that this Clause means what some hon. Members opposite have sought to indicate. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who is not now in his place, took the view that the Clause really meant


that no new mines, under any circumstances, would be sunk in this country in the future. I do not think that is a right interpretation of the Clause. All that it means is that no new mines shall be sunk unless certain considerations are first put before the Commission. If the Clause is accepted, there is nothing in it to say that no new mine will be sunk; all that it means is that under certain conditions, in the national interest, and indeed in the interest of the coal-fields themselves, the Commission may decide that it is inadvisable to sink a new mine in a particular case. Therefore, the argument put from the other side of the House does not seem to hold water. Surely the very background of this Bill, if it has a background at all, and I believe it has, is that some proper measure of planning for the coal-mining industry should be thought out. We who come from the coal-mining districts know perfectly well that there has been no real planning in the national interests at all, as far as this industry is concerned.
I had occasion in January, in my division, to go down a mine which was thought many years ago to be reaching the point of exhaustion. With new revolutionary methods of coal-winning, mines which were thought to be at the point of exhaustion lo or 20 years ago have had new hope given to them. Therefore, if this new Clause meant that in no circumstances could new mines be sunk, there would be some point in the arguments of hon. Members on the other side. All that the Clause means, however, is that the coal-mining industry should be planned upon proper lines in the interests of the areas they seek to serve and of the nation as a whole. I beg the Minister to accept it with a view to the proper planning of the coal-mining industry.

6.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: It would be unusual, unless some overpowering and overwhelming reasons could be adduced, for the House to change the opinion expressed on this new Clause by the Committee. It was before the Committee on the 8th February and was defeated by 241 votes to 122. The only difference, so far as I can see, between the circumstances on that day and those on this are that the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) on that occasion asked me not to accept the new Clause, using the words, "This is really

an extreme Socialistic Clause," and this afternoon he asked me to fall in with the wishes of the Opposition.

Mr. J. Griffiths: He has seen the light.

Captain Crookshank: However that may be, apart from the reasons for the personal change on his part, I do not think that the general arguments which have been brought forward to-day are such as to support the view of the hon. Baronet that everything is different from what it was a month ago. The general object of the Clause, put in its widest terms, is to facilitate the better planning of the coal industry. That is a brief summary of the speeches which we have heard. While better planning of the coal industry is something we all hope to see achieved, this particular method of saying that no new mine of coal shall be sunk unless the owner of the mineral rights has first obtained permission is a method of approach to better planning which cuts right across the basic principle of the Bill. Under Clause 5 the existing rights of the leaseholders are maintained and the existing leases are continued. Let me remind the House that that Clause was accepted by the Committee without a Division. Therefore, the principle that those who have leases to-day should be allowed to get the benefit of them until their expiry was accepted as a right principle.
This new Clause cuts right across that principle, and for that reason alone it would be contradictory to what the Committee has already decided. The position is that the existing leases are safeguarded till the valuation date, and between the valuation date and the vesting date the owners of the coal have full enjoyment of their property and can grant new leases to those who wish to develop the coal. During that period they have to make sure that the terms and conditions of the leases are such as are agreeable to the Commission to the extent that they do not deteriorate the property which is to come into the possession of the Commission on the vesting date. During that interim period, therefore, the Commission has to that extent got some say in the matter; but there is nothing to prevent the owners of the coal who may want to give leases during that period from doing so. What they must not do is to deteriorate the property. There is nothing to prevent them improving the


property even if it is going to pass in a very short time. Therefore, until the vesting date the Commission has no locus standi in matters of this kind. If there is any question of new leases after the property vests in the Commission, when a lease expires or when a lease is desired in a virgin area, it is for the Commission to settle the terms. After the vesting date Clause 15 deals with the position of the Commission with regard to boring, always provided, of course, that it is not something which is already covered by the existing lease, which is safeguarded until the period when the lease comes to an end. I refer to these points in order to show that both on Second Reading and in Committee the House accepted the idea that existing leases should be safeguarded. If this new Clause is introduced in the Bill it will throw that right away; it will throw over something which in Committee the House accepted without a Division. There ought, therefore, to be very strong reasons to make it necessary to take that very unusual course.
The argument then comes back to this. Hon. Members say that this Clause is necessary for the better planning of the industry. It is true that the whole idea is gradually to bring about circumstances throughout the industry where everything will be better planned, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are very impatient. Here we are acquiring this property. That is the first step. We are setting up one landlord instead of a multiplicity of owners of coal, and as and when existing leases fall in, the Commission will act as provided in Clause 2 and will be guided in the granting of new leases by the requirement that they shall do it
as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
Taking a long view, the industry will gradually, no doubt, be put upon a better basis. In fact, it is the old difference between some hon. Gentlemen opposite and some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to be revolutionary and hon. Gentlemen on this side prefer evolutionary methods. I say, therefore, that there are already considerable powers and opportunities for the Coal Commission to start planning the industry on better lines. This suggestion that all existing leases

should be liable to be thrown over merely to prevent any one sinking or opening a mine without the authority of the Commission, although they are fully entitled to do it under their leases to-day should they so desire, is a course of action which we would be unwise to accept. I advise the House to adhere to the opinion expressed in Committee and to refrain from adding this new Clause to the Bill.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not only been singularly unconvincing, but very ambiguous, and I found great difficulty in following him in the first part of his argument. If that was sound, I could not understand why he proceeded to the second part. If he was depending, as he appeared to be doing, on the invalidity of the arguments we presented in relation to the holders of existing leases under this Bill, there was no need for him to discuss the general principle of control. The rights of leaseholders under this new Clause will not be in any way affected, at any rate so far as the financial provisions are concerned. There is no interference with their financial rights. Therefore, if there be any doubts on the other side, as apparently there was, because it appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), as to the financial rights of leaseholders under this proposed Clause, I ask hon. Members to dismiss a consideration of that kind from their minds.
The proposal we are pressing is very simple. There is no express direction contained in the Bill in reference to the operations of the Commission regarding the general control of the industry. The second Clause of the Bill, which is the governing Clause, states that the Commission, first of all, are not to be empowered to engage in the business of coal-mining. That is specific. I do not agree with it, but that is what the Bill says and it has been accepted by the House. The Commission is charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them. That has nothing to do with central control or coordination. As regards the words "for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry" they are very general terms.
This new Clause is the first attempt to insert into the Bill a specific direction upon which the coal Commission should operate in the interests of the industry as a whole. Our proposal in this new Clause is a very modest one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about revolutionary and evolutionary proposals, but there is nothing revolutionary in this proposal. What are the submissions we make in support of it? The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), who generally speaks for the coalowners, said it was undesirable to give the Commission greater powers. Apart from the holding of leases, they have no powers at all. It is true that in another Clause powers are provided for the amalgamation of mining undertakings, but in respect of any general co-ordination which can affect the efficiency of the industry they have no power, and therefore I am not clear what the hon. Member for Chiswick means by asking us not to grant to the Commission greater powers than have already been proposed.
The first point I want to make on the general principle is that the proposed Clause does not affect existing coal-owners, who can continue their operations as at present. The second submission is that the proposed Clause will protect existing owners in a competitive world, will, in fact, to a very large extent arrest competition in an industry which cannot afford more competition. Let me fortify that argument with this illustration. It will be generally admitted, because it is implicit in the Bill, that there are too many units in the mining industry, that there is too much competition, and it is proposed to effect a measure of amalgamation. If in a particular coal district a number of pits are operating, some intensely and others not so intensely because of various economic and other factors, surely we ought not to permit some person to come along, with the authorisation of the holder of a lease, and sink another shaft to produce coal, thus intensifying the competition and making it more difficult for the pits which are only working to, say, 50 per cent. of capacity.
That is the position we present to the House. It is argued that we ought not to give the Commission the powers asked for because private owners know best

what is good for the mining industry. If that be conceded, what is the reason for the Bill? Surely the very purpose of the Bill demonstrates that private owners, however well disposed to promote efficiency in the industry, are incapable of functioning as the Government would desire. Therefore, it is idle to pretend that we ought not to give the Commission the modest powers contained in the Clause. The fact is that private owners do not know what is best for the industry, and even if they think they know best surely the overriding consideration should be what is best for the nation as a whole. No body of private owners, in the mining or any other industry, can determine what is best for the nation, and some power must be vested in an organisation such as we have in this Bill.
There is another point which I regard as one of substance. There is in the Bill a provision, which has been carried over from the Act of 1930, in reference to selling schemes. The basis of the selling schemes is that there should be a standard tonnage, which is determined by the Central Council of Coalowners, and not by individual coalowners, and that there should be a quota of outputs. We lay down that there should be a restriction of output, and everybody agrees that that is a desirable thing, but if that is a good principle why not adopt it in respect of the powers of the Commission to determine what is to happen before we get the actual output of coal? If coalowners are entitled to organise output the Commission should have the power to determine the measure of control before the point of production is reached.
There is a further point which I wish to submit. It is assumed that the Commissioners will operate this provision harshly. If I may say so with great respect, I do not attach much importance to the opinion of the hon. Member for South Croydon, because on all these matters he takes a somewhat peculiar view, but I gather that the hon. Member for Chiswick represents the general view of the coalowners, and is it really supposed that the provision will operate to the detriment of the coalowners as a whole? The Commission have to pay regard, according to Clause 2, to the general efficiency of the industry. There will be frequent negotiations between them


and the coalowners, and it may be between the Central Council of Coalowners and the Commission, and I cannot believe that a Commission vested with such modest powers as appear in this Bill are likely to operate a provision of this kind harshly and to the detriment of the coalowners. If we are to introduce any measure of planning at all, however modest, this is the way to do it, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that if the Government are not prepared to accept this proposal there will not be the slightest vestige of a plan in the Bill at all.
I believe, and I speak with some experience of matters concerning the general administration of the mining industry, that unless some provision of this kind is accepted the Bill will be valueless; at any rate the Commission will be considerably hampered in their operations. Some of us have views about the modest character of the Bill, but we do want to

make it a good Bill, and if the Commission are to operate satisfactory and efficiently they ought to have reasonable powers and not to be restricted at every turn. Because we on this side believe that some reference to a plan, however modest, should be inserted in the Bill; because we believe it will not operate to the detriment of the industry but to its advantage; and because we believe that local authorities, social services and social capital are all affected by the sinking of new shafts without the authorisation of a central organisation, we ask the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider this matter—if the Government do not like the words we suggest let them bring up some other words—and support the modified principle contained in the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 213.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.)
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bellenger F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ridley, G.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Cassells, T.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilton, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pilkington, R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Porritt, R. W.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Assheton, R.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ramsdan, Sir E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Harbord, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boechman, N. A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Savery, Sir Servington


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lees-Jones, J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Levy, T.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Lewis, O.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Spans, W. P.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cross, R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dawson, Sir P.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Denville, Alfred
McKie, J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Dodd, J. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Toes)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Eckersley, P. T.
Markham, S. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Marsden, Commander A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emery, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Everard, W. L.
Morgan, R. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Gledhill, G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wragg, H.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Goldie, N. B.
Peake, O.



Gower, Sir R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.
Major Herbert and Mr. Grimston.

CLAUSE 2.—(General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part 1.)

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after "coal," to insert "and the prevention of subsidences."
This matter was debated on 9th December, upon the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) moved the Amendment and withdrew it after a long discussion, upon the understanding that there was some kind of promise from the


President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment is now upon the Order Paper again, and we have to state our case once more and try to get it carried. Clause 2 deals with the general functions of the Commission and the Commission will be given authority to look after the interest and welfare of the men. The Clause states:
The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
It is at that point that we wish to insert our Amendment. We say that the safe working of coal cannot be carried on unless the important question of subsidence is attended to.
I wish to deal first with safety of working in the mines and the safety of the workmen concerned. Extracting coal leads to enormous cavities. Anyone who has had practical experience of mine working will realise what it means to have behind you on the long wall face of the mine vast areas of open space and to be always in dread of what will happen when the roof subsides, as it must eventually do. It is generally understood and accepted that for the safe working of mines packing or stowing ought to take place as much as possible. One may say that that cannot be done, because so much material has been taken out that it would be impossible to fill the space with the material that has been cast on one side, but it can be filled up to a certain extent with what is called packing, thereby preventing the enormous spaces that occur from time to time. When that is done it serves two purposes in the working of the mine. The settling down of the roof becomes more gradual than otherwise and accumulation of gaseous matter in the open spaces is to a great extent prevented. There is always a danger that when the roof subsides or falls it will send gas into the workings by pressure caused by the fall of roof. By adequate packing that can be prevented. We are asking that, for the safety of the miners and for the better carrying on of the work, packing should be observed and all material stowed underground. By throwing all the weight

on to the coal face that will cause the easier getting of the coal.
The Clause speaks of the national interest. By preventing subsidence you stop the sinking down of the earth's surface, and that is surely in the national interest. In every mining area these gradual depressions are taking place, owing to not stowing properly, and consequently the national interest is ill served in not attending to it. We ask in the Amendment that the Coal Commission should pay attention to that matter in the general working of the mine, so that they may serve the dual purpose of protecting the workmen and those interests which mean so much to the people living in mining areas who are subject to these depressions.
I have just received a resolution which was passed by the local authorities at Tyldesley, Atherton, Ashton-in-Maker-field, Golborne, Earlstown and Leigh, asking me to make an appeal in Parliament that something should be done in the Coal Bill to stop depression and mining subsidence. This Amendment gives me the opportunity of directing the attention of the House to this matter. A fortnight ago a deputation from this House met the Minister of Health on this very question and the Secretary for Mines was present. I hope he will take the opportunity tonight of giving the help which he promised when he met the deputation. He promised that he would appeal to the mineowners to realise the trouble that was being caused by not attending to protection underground and by bringing out material and letting the ground sink, while creating huge mounds on the surface. The Minister of Health and the Secretary for Mines agreed that something should be done in that direction. Here is a golden opportunity. If we can get the Commission to insist that none of this waste material should be brought to the surface we shall prevent the creation of huge mounds on the surface, and we serve another useful purpose by producing greater safety in the mines than exists at the present time.
I hope that we shall get help from the other side on this matter. I want hon. Members to look at it in a wider way. These things spoil the working of the coal seams, but that does not matter to the coalowners, who are out for profit. It is no concern of theirs what effect may be produced on the surface. They consider


that they must work the mines in order to produce a certain return to those who have money invested and that it is no business of theirs to stow their material underground and so prevent subsidence. I hope hon. Members on the other side will realise, apart from any idea of helping the mine workers, that they might help us to preserve the beauty of the countryside. I make an appeal once more, in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade, now that he has examined the matter will say: "I have a big job on to satisfy everybody on this matter, but here is something with which I can satisfy the hon. Member for Leigh and other hon. Members, by agreeing to insert this Amendment in the Bill." I appeal also to the Secretary for Mines to use his influence to get the Amendment accepted. If neither of the Ministers will listen to my appeal, I shall begin to think that the Government pay no attention to whatever we may say. I trust to their good sense to grant this Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Several new factors have come to my knowledge since this matter was debated, and I propose to concentrate my remarks upon them Last Sunday afternoon I was passing along a main road in my division when I was surprised to see something that I had not previously seen there. There was a row of houses which appeared to have been struck by lightning. As a result of subsidence those houses had been badly affected and a local contractor had had to be brought in to put a special mortar into the cracks which had been produced by the subsidence. We should be lacking in our duty if we did not take advantage of this occasion to bring our complaints and grievances before the House of Commons. The city which I represent has sent several deputations to the Secretary for Mines. Since our last Debate the Lord Mayor has led a deputation to him on this question. I do not know what went on at that interview, but after the way in which the North Staffordshire area entertained the Secretary for Mines last week—[Laughter]. Well, I never saw a man better entertained—I am hoping that he will make a statement in reply to the deputation that appeared before him.
Since the last Debate, we have received circulars from a large number of urban

district councils and local authorities affected by this matter. Some of those local authorities are represented by people who are politically opposed to us, but so important and urgent are the difficulties that arise by reason of subsidence, that they are forced to take the question up. The result has been that Members of this House have received circulars on subsidence from local authorities. I received this letter to-day from the Town Clerk of the City of Stoke-on-Trent on behalf of the City Council. He says:
I am directed by the City Council of Stoke-on-Trent to forward to you the undermentioned resolution passed by the council of the North Staffordshire and District Law Society, Ltd., in connection with the injustice to the house-owning public which will result from the operation of the provisions of the Coal Bill with reference to compensation for subsidence.
I know that it would be out of order to raise the question of compensation on this Clause, but the reason that I am drawing the attention of the Minister in particulcir, and the House in general to this question is to show the need for steps to be taken for the prevention of subsidence in order that our people should not need to claim compensation. The letter continues:
'The Council of the North Staffordshire and District Law Society, Limited, representing the Solicitors of North Staffordshire who from their practice in a coal mining district, are fully conversant with the effects and repercussions of subsidence upon house property, draws attention to the injustice to the house-owning public which will be perpetrated by the provisions of the Coal Bill in limiting the compensation for subsidence to damage which could not have been prevented by precautions, the cost of which will be out of all proportion to the price paid to the landowner for the mines compulsorily purchased.'
Yours faithfully,
E. B. SHARPLEY (Town Clerk).
I have read the letter in order to reinforce the claim we are making that the Minister should agree to insert the Amendment in the Bill, so that the Commission can take steps to prevent subsidence in areas of this character. Since our last Debate there has appeared in the "Daily Dispatch" photographs of a row of houses in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). If hon. Members could have seen the effect of subsidence upon these houses, I am convinced that they would have been supporting us this evening. The photographs showed houses which were practically split in two as a result of


subsidence, and the local authority in this area has been forced to take steps to house the people. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will make a statement with regard to the case presented to him by the deputation from my division.

7.4 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House would wish that the Commission should have power to make regulations to prevent subsidence. The only question, therefore, is whether it is provided for in the Clause as it now stands. My view is that probably it is; at the same time, there is a doubt. I think it would be all right if we stopped at the words
affect the national interest
but to leave in the words
including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions,
is to particularise. It might well be argued that, having put in these particulars, we had left out subsidence, and, therefore, I appeal to the Minister to make the position clear. The Amendment could do no harm, and if he would accept it, it would make the position abundantly clear from the point of view of the law.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I wish to associate myself with the appeal which has been made to the Minister to accept the Amendment. The question of subsidence is of very great importance, especially in Staffordshire, where a great deal of damage has been done during recent years as a result of these geological changes. The Secretary for Mines will remember that we had a very full Debate some weeks ago on the Committee stage on the question of compensation in respect of subsidence, and that he said it was impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment providing for compensation. Whatever justification there may be for the Government taking up that attitude with regard to the past, surely, there is no justification to do so with regard to the future. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Board of Trade shall issue general directions to the Commission, so as to enable them to take any necessary precautions with regard to the prevention of subsidence in future.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has indicated that, in his opinion, the principle would be accepted by both sides of the House. If that be so, surely, there can be no objection to inserting this Amendment in the Clause. It is true that the whole includes the part, but having regard to the fact that the Government have thought fit to particularise in respect of matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, there can be no objection to accepting the Amendment so as to include the second particular with regard to the prevention of subsidences. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. Even the power given to the Board of Trade is optional. There is nothing mandatory about the Clause itself. If it were possible for the Board of Trade to issue directions to the Commission, they would be purely precautionary, and I hope that for that reason the President of the Board of Trade will see fit to accept the Amendment.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will, to a great extent, agree with the speeches that we have heard, especially the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who moved the Amendment. I am sure that more could be done in the way of underground stowage. I remember, some 10 years ago, paying a visit to the Ruhr district of Germany and being impressed by the amount of underground stowage that was being done. It is possible by moving forward the longwall faces very rapidly, in many cases, to reduce the amount of damage done to the surface, and a great deal can be done by careful attention to this particular method. I feel that, in the vast majority of cases, colliery companies are not deliberately damaging the surface. Far more often than not, when a colliery company damages the surface, the result is that it has to meet a fairly heavy bill. The hon. Member for Leigh went so far as to suggest that no waste material should be brought up from the collieries at all. While that might apply perfectly well in certain districts, and perhaps in the district with which he is associated, in other districts it would create all sorts of difficulties.

Mr. Wragg: And dangers.

Mr. Mitchell: For example, in Scotland a great many collieries are using the whole of their waste material for making bricks. If you prohibit them from bringing up that waste material, not only would you, in some cases, cause difficulties to collieries which only just keep going by brick production, but you would cause a very acute shortage of bricks in Scotland, where every brick is needed to overcome the housing shortage. I want the Minister, before he accepts an Amendment of this kind, to be aware of the difficulties which might exist in several districts. I appreciate that in certain districts it may be possible to keep the waste material completely underground, but there are other districts where such a course would be practically impossible, and it would cause a great deal of damage and unemployment.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I gather from what the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell) has just said, that he thinks it would be inadvisable if colliery companies were obliged to keep the rubbish in the collieries, and that difficulties might arise at collieries where they make bricks from the debris taken out of the pits. Undoubtedly there is some monetary gain to colliery companies where they are able to use some of the debris in making bricks, but normally it is a very small proportion of the underground debris that can be used for making bricks or anything else.

Mr. Mitchell: The collieries to which I referred are using 90 per cent. of the waste material which they bring up in making bricks.

Mr. Jenkins: It is a very small percentage of the rubbish that is in the colliery. It is important for the House to remember that subsidence in general can be prevented if rubbish is kept in the colliery.

Mr. Wragg: Would the hon. Gentleman say that it is safe in most collieries in this country to stow that rubbish? Would it not be a great danger? I know it would.

Mr. Jenkins: It is rarely that you have a type of material which would be dangerous.

Mr. Wragg: Every day.

Mr. Jenkins: Obviously, if you had that type of material it would be foolish to

keep it in the pit, and no colliery company would desire to do so. I can speak from experience in this matter. Some of the best collieries in South Wales are those in which all the rubbish has been kept. They are properly packed, the roads are better, and the colliery is safer. There are no spaces where gas can accumulate. In many collieries great spaces are left where sometimes gas accumulates and the area is such that it is almost impossible to ventilate it properly.

Mr. Wragg: Why do they bring up the stuff?

Mr. Jenkins: Purely from the point of view of economy. It is cheaper to bring it up than to stow it.

Mr. Wragg: No, it is cheaper to stow it.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is really talking quite wildly upon this point. One knows the practices of colliery companies quite well, and much of this rubbish is brought up because it is cheaper to do so. I am strengthened in this argument by the reports of the last seven or eight years of the Divisional Inspector for South Wales. He has recommended time after time, and year after year, that the standard of safety would be raised very considerably if the rubbish were kept in the pit instead of bringing it to the surface and piling it up in heaps. All kinds of difficulties arise. There is the possibility of hydraulic stowage. In Upper Silesia hydraulic stowage is carried out in a very effective manner and subsidence is generally prevented. There are many instances in Upper Silesia where I have seen hydraulic stowing carried out, and where they have succeeded in stowing a 40-foot seam and preventing to a large extent any danger from subsidence. I agree that the process is costly, but our seams in this country are very much thinner. One often finds, however, that, even when a seam is not more than four feet thick, the rubbish will be brought to the surface instead of being kept in the pit and used to pack the spaces securely. I know, of course, that in the Staffordshire district there are thick seams, and in that district stowing has been greatly neglected and great damage has been done to surface property, all for the purpose of enabling the colliery owners to make a little more profit. There is no other reason at all.

Mr. Wragg: That is ridiculous.

Mr. Jenkins: I know that the hon. Member knows something about mines, but I am afraid his experience is not as wide as that of some of us. No doubt, however, he will get his opportunity later. Where this damage has been done, it is ntterly impossible to put the property into proper condition. In many places in Wales you see cottages which have been properly built, which have been purchased by colliery workpeople, and which, when the coal has been worked under them, have begun to face all ways. I know of a group of 50 houses built in 1913 by an urban district council at a very substantial cost. Since then, coal has been worked under these houses, and it is now possible to see through any of them. The walls have gone in all directions; they are shored up with timbers; and the result has been a substantial loss to the authority concerned. If this subsidence could not be prevented, there would be some argument for allowing it to continue, but we know that, with adequate stowing, it can be prevented. The Minister may say that there is provision in the Clause which gives the Commission power to take certain steps in this connection, but I cannot read that into the Clause; it seems to me that the Clause is not detailed and specific enough to give the Commission authority to impose upon colliery owners the duty of adequately stowing the space from which they remove the coal. The Clause speaks of:
the safety of the working of coal.
The safety of the working of coal is, I agree, a matter of importance, but in many cases the question of subsidence might well be included. I hope the Minister will say that powers are being taken to get this matter dealt with, but, if so, I think it ought to be made much more specific in the Clause than it is at the present time.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I am rather surprised that the Minister has not intervened before on this Amendment. He told us in Committee that he thought he had power in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 as it stood, and he said that, if he had not that power, he would see that he got it. We have put down this Amendment to safeguard ourselves, thinking that the Minister would, before any Debate on it took place, convince us that he has the

power to do what the Amendment suggests. If he did that, we should withdraw the Amendment, but it is for the Minister to show us that he has the necessary power. There is a general feeling in the House that it is desirable to prevent subsidence. I can quite understand that it would be costly, and I do not think it would be very easy in some coalfields. I know, however, that in some parts of my own division subsidence has created havoc for individuals and for the local authorities. They know what the effect has been on their sewerage, their sanitary arrangements, and in other ways. It has cost the local councils in my division many hundreds of pounds to deal with it, and has cost the local builders quite as much, if not more. All we ask is that the Commission should be given this power, so far as they can exercise it, to prevent subsidence. We know that it is a tremendous task, but we think it can be done. Indeed, it has been done in some areas, and we ask that the Commission should have the power to do it. I hope that the Minister will say to us that in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 he has the power for which we are asking in this Amendment. If he says that, we shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Grookshank: I thought that hon. Members opposite wanted to develop their argument on this matter, and accordingly I did not intervene earlier. I apologise if I misunderstood their intention. I think I can clear up this point quite rapidly. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) with great interest. I agree with him that I was most splendidly entertained in his constituency, and not the least pleasing part of my visit was when he and I went to a football match at which we saw Bolton Wanderers subside.
I would like to make one remark on the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who referred to a deputation, of which he was a member, which came to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself. As that was a private deputation, and no public statement was made afterwards, I think that perhaps it will be better if I neither accept nor deny his version of what passed on that occasion. During the Debate in Committee this matter was


raised, and the question was whether or not it was necessary to insert these words in the Bill in order that the Board of Trade should, if it saw fit, give to the Commission general directions on this subject, or whether, without these words, it was possible for general directions to be given. During that Debate my right hon. Friend said:
It has always been our view that subsidence is one of the matters upon which the Board of Trade might give a general instruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1937; col. 657, Vol. 330.]
He went on to say that he was quite clear in his own mind that this power was inherent in the Clause, without its being necessary to say so in so many words. Since then we have taken further advice, and my right hon. Friend's view has been confirmed that it is not necessary to particularise. I think the real reason for that was given just now by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), when he said that he thought the matter was open to doubt because the safety of the working of coal was particularised, and that the doubt ought to be cleared up. It seems to me that to particularise still further would be to endanger still more any other matters about which it might be desirable to give general directions. My right hon. Friend pointed out why we have particularised with regard to the safety of the working of coal, namely, because that was one of the things which one would not normally associate with the ground landlord. That was why we thought it necessary to mention it specifically. But this other matter of subsidence is quite clearly, in our view, one which it would be reasonable that the ground landlord should take an interest in and should deal with if possible. As it is one of a variety of things, it is better not to particularise. Therefore, since we are fortified in the opinion we gave on the previous occasion that these words are not necessary, and since, as the House knows, it is always undesirable to put into Bills words which are not required, I suggest to the hon. Member that he should not press this matter any further, with the assurance that what he wants is there.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it seems to me that to refrain from using specific language with respect

to this question would be to render the power of the Commission in this regard quite incidental to its main functions, and, as hon. Members on this side regard the question of the prevention of subsidence as fundamental, I am afraid we shall require to test the opinion of the House in the Division Lobby. I assumed, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose, that he was proposing to accept the Amendment, and I cannot understand why he rejects it. It may be that some other language would be more appropriate to the principle we are trying to establish, and, if that be one of the difficulties, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could deal with the matter at a subsequent stage. We do not dispute for a moment that the question of legislation with respect to subsidence bristles with difficulties, but we are not asking for legislation which would deal with the whole question. For example, no reference is made in this Amendment to the question of compensation, which was raised by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage. All that we are asking in effect is that the Commission, in granting leases, should lay down the condition that efforts should be made, and will be made, to prevent subsidence.

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Gentleman is reading into the Amendment words which are not there. The Amendment would merely provide that the Board of Trade might give to the Commission general directions regarding this matter; it does not cover what the Commission might do.

Mr. Shinwell: I quite recognise that point, but surely the exclusive purpose of the directions which the Board of Trade may give to the Commission is to ensure that the Commission will carry out those directions; otherwise I cannot understand the purpose of it. While it is true that the matter is vested primarily in the Board of Trade, and is subsequently referred by the Board of Trade, in its discretion, to the Commission, it must be assumed that the Commission will conform to the directions of the Board of Trade. Our proposal is such a moderate one that there is no reason at all for the Government to refuse it. If we were asking at this stage that the Commission should lay it down in the most positive fashion that compensation must be paid


where there is subsidence, that they should begin at once to enforce on every colliery owner stowing of a practical kind, and so on, I could understand the Government refusing to accept the proposal, which would give rise to a great deal of fuss on the opposite benches by the coalowners' representatives. We are not asking for that. I repeat that all we are asking for is that the Commission, as a result of directions given to them by the Board of Trade, should pay due regard to the question of the prevention of subsidence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that that is within their functions. My quarrel with him is that, if it is within their functions, it is purely incidental. I want it to be made one of their primary duties, because we regard it as being so important from the standpoint of the proper functioning of the mining industry.
I would remind the House that this question of subsidence and questions associated with it have been before the country for a great many years. Many years ago, a Royal Commission on mining subsidences made its report. I recall that in 1924 the matter was being considered with a view to legislation. It was found to be, as I have said, bristling with difficulties, and everybody recognises that. Here is the first opportunity we have had—and we may get no other opportunity for many years—to assure at least, irrespective of wider measures, that property may be, to some extent, safeguarded and the mines rendered safer. The right hon. Gentleman said, in respect of another matter earlier in the evening, that we might introduce a private Member's Bill, and that if we did we should get Government support. This is not a matter on which we can introduce a private Bill; it is much too complex; and I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and accord to this moderate proposal the consideration and favour that it deserves.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: This, really, is an almost ridiculous situation. The whole House, I think, and the Minister certainly, is agreed that we want to be sure that the Board of Trade has power to give directions relating to the prevention of subsidence, and it is simply a question of what is the best way of doing it. Most lawyers

would say, certainly, that the best way would be to put these words in, but the Minister says—and he must mean what he says—that he is clear, on the advice he has been given, that he has the power without putting the words in. I see that the lawyers referred to in the letter from Stoke-on-Trent and the hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) do not think so. I do not think so—that does not matter much, I know; but I mention the point. I can only say, with the very greatest respect to the eminent lawyers who advise the Government, that the Bar must have made at least £100,000 in the last few years out of legislation which they have advised Ministers was all right. It is notorious, for instance, that the derating Act means exactly the opposite of what the Government thought it would mean; and whenever a lawyer is told what the Crown intended to be done about it, the case has to be adjourned to allow him to recover from his laughter. The reason that is being given is that it is dangerous to add these words because, if you proceed further to particularise, you may add a limitation, and it may be necessary to insert something more to deal with that. Let the Minister tell us what the something more is that might possibly be excluded, and, if there is something more, let him put that in, too. The English language is clumsy, and, if they want to be sure, let them include the words:
including, without prejudice to the generality of these provisions, all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal and subsidence.…
This is not a party matter. I feel sure that the moment this is in operation and the Board of Trade makes some regulations dealing with subsidence, and it happens to meet an individual of one of the more obstinate types, who wants to challenge the validity of the regulations, because he is affected by them, there will be prolonged litigation.

Mr. Spens: This does not authorise the Board of Trade to make regulations at all. It authorises the Board of Trade to give directions to the Commission.

Mr. Pritt: How wonderful. We have a contribution from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who points out that this does not authorise the Board of Trade to make


regulations, but only to give directions. That is a useful contribution to the Debate, I am sure. I apologise for using the word "regulations" instead of "directions," and I apologise for bringing the hon. and learned Member for Ash-ford to his feet.

Mr. Spens: I have pointed out that the directions cannot affect any individual. They are matters only between the Board of Trade and the Commission.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to wrangle with the hon. and learned Member for

Ashford, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in doing so. The effect would be that if the Board of Trade gave directions to the Commission to exercise certain functions, and the Commission could not do so, we would have litigation as to whether it was ultra uires or not. That is what I want to avoid, and I suggest that the Amendment ought to be accepted.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 183.

Division No. 154.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Graves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Owen, Major G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Bevan, A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cape, T.
Holdsworth, H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cassells, T.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
John, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobble, W.
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McEntee, V. La T.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Mander, G. le M.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bull, B. B.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Campball, Sir E. T.
Culverwell, C. T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cartland, J. R. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovll)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dawson, Sir P.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, N. (Edgb't'n)
Denville, Alfred


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Channon, H.
Donner, P. W.


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Eastwood, J. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Eckersley, P. T.


Beechman, N. A.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Bernays, R. H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colville, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Ellis, Sir G.


Bossom, A. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Emery, J. F.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Bracken, B.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Brass, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fildes, Sir H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Fleming, E. L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cross, R. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.




Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsay and Otley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Gledhill, G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Gluckstain, L. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcaster)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maitland, A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Markham, S. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Spans, W. P.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hannah, I. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hannan, Sir P. J. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncasatle)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Munro, P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Marquess of


Higgs, W. F.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Touche, G. C.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Peake, O.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peat, C. U.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hopkinson, A.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Petherick, M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, T.
Pilkington, R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rankin, Sir R.
Windsor-Olive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Leech, Sir J. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lees-Jones, J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Levy, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wragg, H.


Lewis, O.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Liddall, W. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)



Lipson, D. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lyons, A. M.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness.

CLAUSE 3.—(Commission to acquire fee simple in coal.)

7.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "interests," to insert "and with full capacity so to do."
That is to meet a point which was taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who pointed out that in this part of the Bill we are dealing with notional contracts, under which the property will be held during the interim period, and he said that it could not bind the property if the owner at the date of valuation was of unsound mind. It is necessary to put in some saving words to protect that case.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "paragraph," to insert:
and, in the case of any such other minerals or substances that are or would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with that coal or anthracite, the Commission shall, if any person interested therein makes application to the Commission

in that behalf before the expiration of six months from the valuation date, by direction exclude them from the operation of this paragraph.
There was an Amendment on the Paper in the Committee stage, but it was not moved. On further consideration my right hon. Friend thought it was a reasonable provision to ask the House to insert. What we are dealing with in this part of Clause 3 is the subsidiary minerals. Paragraph (b) says that in this part of the Bill the expression "coal" shall, in a case in which minerals or substances othed than bituminous coal are comprised in the lease at the valuation date, include those other minerals or substances "so however that the Commission may, by direction …" exclude from the operation of this paragraph the minerals indicated. Generally speaking, the Commission does not want to be possessed of the subsidiary minerals, and the only subsidiary minerals that they do need to take are those which are in the lease. Then they have this power of exclusion. If they are not worked in association with the coal but merely by surface workings there does not seem to be any reason why


they should take them over, particularly in cases where application is made that they should not. I think it is reasonable to suggest that when an application of that kind is duly made, the Commission may exclude them.

7.49 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "that," and to insert "as in the opinion of the Commission."
Apart from my Amendment we certainly oppose the Minister's Amendment because it seems to me this is giving back to the owner something for which the Commission has paid. They have paid on the basis of the royalty under the lease. The royalty under the lease covers these other minerals as well as the coal. It may be that they do not want to work them. It may be that somebody else wants to work them, but why should he get them for nothing, which is what he is doing if this is allowed? The royalty was the basis for the valuation.

Mr. Spens: In some cases there are quite separate royalties.

Sir S. Cripps: But the whole was taken into account. If you say these minerals were never included in that which you purchased, then there might be an argument for excluding them altogether—taking them right out of the definition Clause altogether; but it is no argument for putting this Amendment in. Because, as this Bill was originally drafted, the conception was that where a lease covered these other minerals in addition to coal, that was paid for by the £66,000,000.

Captain Crookshank: Paying for the valuation is quite another matter. This is merely what is to vest.

Sir S. Cripps: Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite appreciate what the point is. I am sure it is my fault. Certain things vest in the Commission, by virtue of which they are paid £66,000,000. That is what they get for that £66,000,000—that which vests in them. The coal vests in them. In addition, under this Clause as originally drawn, other minerals also vested in them if they hold under a lease which covers the coal. Either it must have been in the contemplation of the parties when the arbitration took place that the

£66,000,000 covered the other minerals, or it did not cover the other minerals. If it did not cover the other minerals, then there was no justification for including the other minerals in this Clause as it originally stood. I am, therefore, justified in concluding that it did cover the other minerals. That is why it was put into this Clause as passing and vesting with the coal. Then there was a power given in case the owners did not wish to have the other minerals, enabling them to divest themselves of them, presumably because they were of no value. Therefore, they lost nothing. But this case now must be on the basis that there must be other minerals which the Commissioners would not divest themselves of because, if they did divest themselves of them, this addition would not be necessary. Therefore, this must deal with minerals which they do not wish to divest themselves of, but which the owner wants to get back. If you have paid for them in the £66,000,000 it is not right to give them back to the owner without any payment at all; it is not right to make the Commission give them up when the Commission think they are of value.
What really is the position here? It is completely different from the Clause as it stood before, which allowed the Commissioners to get rid of something which they thought of no value. Now the Amendment is giving the owner a right to demand back from them something which they do consider of value. For that we can see no conceivable justification, unless you are going to say that when they demand them back they shall pay the value of them. Why should the owner who has been paid the value of the minerals under the lease be able to get back again a part of that value without paying for it? That seems to us to be the position under this Amendment. So long as it was merely a question of the Commissioners getting rid of something they did not want, there was quite a good reason for that, seeing it was of no value. But now when, though they do not wish to get rid of it, they are forced to give it back, although they have paid for it, that means giving back to the mineral owners some part of that for which the £66,000,000 was paid.
I quite understand the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that in some cases there may be a separate royalty payable for these other


minerals, in addition to the royalty payable for the coal. If it be a fact that that other royalty was not taken into account in arriving at the £66,000,000, then there may be some excuse for it; but if the other royalty was in fact taken into account and included in the £66,000,000, then quite clearly there can be no excuse. Furthermore, in those cases of leases where a single royalty covers the right to get both the coal and the other minerals and that single royalty has of course been brought in as part of the £66,000,000, the total price of the minerals, there can be no argument in favour of giving back part of the subject matter of that royalty. The right hon. Gentleman would never suggest that the Commissioners should be forced to give back a part of the coal, even if they did not want to work it. That would be giving back something they have paid for. These other minerals in my submission are in exactly the same position.
My Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which is a comparatively small matter, was put down for these reasons. The words are:
and, in the case of any such other minerals or substances that are or would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with that coal or anthracite …
But who is going to determine that? Who is going to determine whether they are worked, not in connection with surface workings and in association with that coal? That is not a matter which ought to be allowed to go to the courts. In view of the fact that the Commissioners are giving up something which belongs to them, it ought to be left in the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether in the particular case the minerals do come within the definition. As the Amendment is at present left there is no guidance at all. Is it to be sufficient for a person to say to the Commission, "These other minerals, I suggest, would normally be worked by surface workings and not in association with the coal"? Is that to be a sufficient qualification, and thereupon are the Commissioners to divest themselves of the minerals and to hand them back; or has one to go to a court and get a declaration that these minerals are such minerals? Under my Amendment it would be left to the Commissioners to decide whether in the particular case minerals fall within

this definition. But our major objection, and the objection against this Amendment, upon which we must divide unless we can get some better explanation of it, is that this is forcing the Commission against their will to divest themselves of something of value, for which they have paid.

8.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: It may facilitate the discussion if I say that I think the hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. The £66,500,000 did not include these other minerals. The other minerals are quite outside that. Consequently, that part of the hon. and learned Member's case, that the Commission will be divesting itself of something for which it had already paid, is wrong. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. and learned Member. With regard to his Amendment, the normal and constitutional way, if there was a dispute, would be for the court to decide it, but on consideration we agree that this is a practical matter which might well be decided in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, and therefore my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Retention of leasehold, etc., interests carrying right to work.)

8.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out from "that," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
if by reason of that coal or mine being comprised in an inferior under-lease a direction may be given under this Sub-section both as respects interests arising under the lease and as respects interests arising under the underlease, a direction shall not be given as respects the former unless a direction has been given or is to be given as respects the latter also.
This is merely a drafting Amendment. It is to insert certain words instead of the proviso which appears in the Bill. It deals with a technical and rather complicated matter with regard to leases.
Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, after "right," to insert:


to work that coal or to use that mine for a coal-mining purpose, as the case may be.
We inserted this Sub-section in the Committee in order to provide for a case where an Order had been made by the Railway and Canal Commission, under which Order coal was in fact worked which could not otherwise be worked. In the words inserted in the Committee it was not made clear that this Sub-section (5) was intended to apply only in cases where the Order was an Order to work and not merely an ancillary Order. This and the following Amendment are brought forward simply to make it clear that that is the sort of case which is to be covered by the Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 28, after "order," insert:
to a person other than the person in whom the corresponding right arising under the lease is vested."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert:
but shall not include any option to acquire, or any right of pre-emption over, an interest in coal or a mine of coal, that may be conferred by the lease.
There was some discussion on this point in Committee, and either my right bon. Friend or my hon. and gallant Friend stated that it was the Government's intention that an option to obtain a lease would not be a retained interest, but in a case where a person had an option as against the freehold owner of the coal he should be entitled to come into the compensation. Under that option he had rights which diminished the value of the freeholder, and therefore he was entitled to a certain proportion of the compensation. The latter point comes in on an Amendment to Clause 38, where we make it clear that he can come in as an interested party if he has an interest

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) references to retained interests shall be construed, in relation to any coal or mine o£ coal, as references to interests therein that are retained interests by virtue of this Section or of Section twenty-nine of this Act, and, in relation to any property or rights annexed to that coal or mine, as references to the corresponding interests therein.
This is a drafting Amendment of a highly technical character. Retained

interests in virtue of the provisions of Schedule 2 may include interests which are not technical interests in any coal or mine of coal. This Amendment is to make it clear that in other parts of the Bill retained interests are to be construed in the way defined.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Ascertainment and distribution of compensation.)

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(9) At the expiration of three months from the vesting date and at the expiration of every subsequent period of three months expiring before the compensation in respect of a holding has been paid in full the Commission shall pay to the person then entitled to the compensation in respect of such holding interest for such three months calculated as provided in the next succeeding Sub-section.
(10) In respect of any such period of three months expiring before the Regional Valuation Board have settled the draft valuation of such holding the interest shall be calculated so as to be equal in amount to fifty per centum of one-fourth of the rents and profits of the holding for the year ending at the vesting date.
(11) In respect of any such period after the Regional Valuation Board have settled their draft valuation of such holding and before they have certified the amount of the value of such holding under Sub-section (6) of this Section the interest shall be calculated at the rate mentioned in Sub-section (8) of this Section upon a sum equal to seventy-five per centum of the amount of such draft valuation.
(12) In respect of any such period after the Regional Valuation Board have certified the said amount under Sub-section (6) of this Section the interest shall be calculated at the said rate upon a sum equal to seventy-five per centum of the amount so certified.
This Amendment, in my view and in the view of my hon. Friends, touches one of the weak spots in the whole of the Government scheme. On the vesting date the royalties on all coal passes from the royalty owners to the Commission, and from that moment the royalty owner becomes disentitled to receive one single half penny from the royalties. The theory is that by that date the Value of the coal will have been ascertained and that he will have received the stock and will be receiving the income on his share of the global sum. But from the figures that are now known and from the computation of the valuations of the holdings, it seems perfectly certain that in a great number of cases there is no hope at all of the valuations being completed by the


vesting date. In these circumstances, such a person is left without any sort of legal claim to any income to carry him on.
It is true that in the Schedule there is a provision under which the Commission, if it thinks fit, may make some payment on account;, but the former royalty owner is left entirely at the mercy of the Commission. He may have regularly recurring quarterly or other payments which he has to make, or otherwise get into trouble. There may be mortgage interest to be paid quarter by quarter or half-year by half-year. That money has to be found by him, and yet he has no certainty and no legal right to claim one penny of capital or interest from the Commission. It is all dependent on whether the Commission, in their charity, think that they will make some payment to him on account.
In our view that is a wholly improper situation in which to leave these people when the State is compulsorily expropriating them. If the State is going compulsorily to expropriate people and take from them their capital and their income, then at the date on which the State takes away the whole of their property the State ought to give them the legal right to receive something to keep them going. The Amendment is the result of a good deal of thought, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House. Its object is to give these people the right to receive on account each quarter a certain amount of income. If the valuation has not reached a certain stage, then they shall be paid on account a sum at the rate of 50 per cent. of one-fourth of their old royalties. If the draft valuation has been settled so that one knows that it is only a question of totting up figures, then they should get a sum equal to 75 per cent. of what that valuation shows.
The Amendment is to give them a legal right to an income on which they may rely, so that they will no longer be dependent on the charity of the Commission. I submit that it is utterly and hopelessly wrong that in a huge scheme where the State is expropriating people on a certain date those people should be left dependent on the mere power to make a payment to them on account. If the State takes away capital and interest from people it must give them a right to receive

income as on that date. I propose the Amendment with all the force at my command, because it seems to us to be fair and one way of remedying a flaw in the Government's scheme.

Mr. Denman: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The difficulty to which the hon. and learned Member has called attention is one to which naturally much thought has been given. His Amendment is based on the assumption that the whole time-table of the Bill is wrong. If the time-table as to valuation is correct and it is possible on the vesting date, or within such a short time as makes no difference, for compensation to be paid, this problem does not arise at all. The hon. and learned Member asks us to accept the Amendment because he says it is now clear that there is no hope of the valuation being completed by the right time. That is the first I have heard of this, and I do not know any reason at the moment on which he bases that assumption. If the hon. and learnedmember and those associated with him are correct, then I agree it is a serious matter which Parliament should consider, because these people whose property is being purchased by legislative action, whether they are large people or small people, have obligations which have to be met, and they will be placed in an awkward situation if no income is coming in. It might be, as the hon. and learned Member said, mortgage interest or payments which have to be met under trusts which cannot be postponed. All that is quite true if the assumption the hon. and learned Member makes is well founded.
We have sought to deal with the position by the provision we make in the Third Schedule, where the Commission have power to make payments on account when they are satisfied, before the final certificates become conclusive, that a particular person can safely be given a certain sum on account within what the ultimate compensation may be. That does not, of course, deal with the situation which would arise in the event of a complete breakdown, and I said in the Committee stage that if the whole plan broke down Parliament would have to take the matter into consideration. The Amendment seeks to make it statutory


that some payment on account shall be made to these persons if compensation payments are unduly delayed. In the Schedule it is permissive; the Commission has to be satisfied that it is reasonable to make these payments. The Amendment makes it mandatory on them to make some payment, on a sliding scale according to the stage the valuations have reached. In paragraph 10:
in respect of any such period of three months expiring before the Regional Valuation Board have settled the draft valuation of such holding
so much. In paragraph 11:
in respect of any such period after the Regional Valuation Board have settled their draft valuation of such holding
so much. And in paragraph 12:
In respect of any such period after the Regional Valuation Board have certified the said amount under Sub-section (6) of this Section
so much. There is a sliding scale. It might be, if one is anticipating a complete breakdown, that something of this sort may have to be devised, but it could not be the particular proposal in the Amendment. I recognise that a great deal of thought has been given to the drafting of the Amendment to cover all the points at issue, but let me put this point to the hon. and learned Member. Under paragraph 10 of his Amendment you may have property which is going to have only one year's life after the vesting date. In that case the capital valuation would not be very high, not much more than the revenue received during the preceding year. If there is going to be a year's interval the Commission would be obliged to tender during that year by way of interest a sum equal to 50 per cent. of the compensation award. That may be an extreme case, but if you are going to give a statutory right of this kind you have to be certain that it is all right in every case. There is, of course, the difficulty which has been inherent all along of being quite certain that the person to whom this compensation is to be paid is the right person. That is part of the difficulty which is involved in a statutory arrangement of this kind. While I admit that my right hon. Friend and I have great sympathy with the hon. and learned Member and his friends in trying to devise some scheme which would enable these persons to have some form of income, we are not prepared to make the big assumption with

which he starts, that the whole timetable of the Bill is wrong. We prefer to rely on the arrangements in the Schedule under which payment on account can be made. We are sure that if the gloomy prognostications of the hon. and learned Member are right and our anticipations so wrong that you have to make payments for such a long period as the Amendment envisages, it certainly is a matter which Parliament would have to consider nearer to the time when we can see how things are shaping. For these reasons we feel that the Amendment should not be inserted.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers of Commission for consolidation of leases before the vesting date.)

8.24 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, to leave out "in the same colliery area."

This Amendment and the next three Amendments form part of one proposal. They deal with the point raised in Committee stage about the proper definition of "colliery takes." We are dealing here with the power of the Commission to consolidate leases before the vesting date. One of the most useful functions of the Commission when it comes into full control of its property will be to set about consolidating leases, and under this Clause powers are taken to do it in anticipation of the vesting date. It is clear that the definition in the Bill is not really quite correct. We have drafted it so that it would read:
Where rights to work a number of parcels of coal are subsisting under a number of coal-mining leases in the same working lessee, and it appears …
In the fourth Amendment we define what a "working lessee" means in relation to these parcels of coal and also what is a "subsisting working lease." I am afraid this is an extremely technical point, but this form of words has the assent of those who are most technically expert in this matter, and they are satisfied that it does what we want to do, namely, to define what in ordinary parlance is a "colliery take."

8.26 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not quite certain what is the object of the omission of the words "in the same colliery area," because the parcels of coal must be in the


same colliery area because of the new Sub-section (2) which it is proposed to insert and also the definitions at the end of the Clause. The new Sub-section (2) which is proposed reads:
(2) A single lease to be granted pursuant to a lease consolidation scheme that relates to any colliery area must comprise all the coal and mines of coal in that colliery area.
Why omit the words "in the same colliery area" at the beginning where there is a definition of what is to be the subject-matter of the consolidation scheme, when exactly the same words are put in the new Sub-section (2), and refer to a
scheme that relates to any colliery area"?
What is the object of leaving the words out at the beginning if they are to reappear later? I should have thought that it would have been better to have the words at the beginning so as to give the definition as early as possible in the Clause rather than to wait until a later stage. With regard to the third Amendment, I am not quite certain whether, according to the definition as it now reads, the expression "colliery area" means
an area comprising all parcels of coal which are capable of being conveniently and economically worked to the shafts of a single colliery.

Captain Crookshank: There are some new words to be inserted.

Sir S. Cripps: I agree; there are the words
in respect of which the same person is working lessee,
and so on. I am not clear why the new Sub-section (2) is wanted in that form if this is in the definition Sub-section. I should have thought that if the words "in the same colliery area" had been left in at the beginning of the Clause, and if there had been a new definition as to what is meant by "the same colliery area," it would have covered the matter. To insert the new Sub-section (2) and the new definition is a duplication, and does not make the Clause more simple. It seems to me that the Clause is made more involved and more clumsy by these Amendments.

8.30 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not take any exception to the general effect of what we are trying to do in these

Amendments. It is simply a question of drafting, and of course, he knows that there will be an opportunity of looking into questions of drafting again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 12, line 13, after "leases," insert "in the same working lessee."

In line 20, at the end, insert:
(2) A single lease to be granted pursuant to a lease consolidation scheme that relates to any colliery area must comprise all the coal and mines of coal in that colliery area.

In page 13, line 16, leave out from "and," to the end of the Clause, and insert:
in respect of which the same person is working lessee;

(b) the expression 'working lessee' means, in relation to any parcels of coal, a person carrying on the business of coalmining who has rights to work those parcels by virtue of a number of coal-mining leases held by him in possession (that is to say not subject to any under-lease) or so held by another for his benefit; and
(c) the expression 'subsisting working lease' means a coal-mining lease which comprises any coal in a colliery area to which a lease consolidation scheme relates and which is held as aforesaid by or for the benefit of the working lessee."—[Captain Crookshank.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Right of freeholder in Possession of coal to lease thereof.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, after "longer," to insert "as regards the coal comprised therein."
I would like to deal with this Amendment and the following Amendment at the same time. The Clause with which we are now dealing concerns the right of the freeholder in possession to be granted a lease—what is called the working proprietor's right to get the lease for the coal which is his. As the Clause now stands, the lease would be granted to him for such a term, commencing on the vesting date, as he might require, because he has the right to ask for it, subject to an overriding maximum:
not being longer than may be reasonably requisite for enabling the coal comprised therein to be worked out.
It is quite possible that the property in question might—I do not say it would—comprise two things: first, freehold coal, for which he would have the right to secure a lease to work, and secondly, a freehold mine of coal. Hon. Members


will remember that under the definition, a mine of coal is not the coal itself, but is the
space which is occupied by coal or which has been excavated underground for a coalmining purpose, and includes a shaft and an adit made for a coal-mining purpose.
The individual I have in mind might be working from the same shaft some coal which he owns and also some which he has leased. Under the Clause as it is, he gets the lease long enough to work the freehold coal, if he wants it, and we are making it possible, when that is exhausted, for him still to have the right to use the shaft for any leasehold coal which he is working from the same shaft. The point has been brought to our notice as a practical one, it occurs in certain instances, and we think it is right that it should be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 4, leave out "the coal comprised therein" and insert "that coal."—[Captain Crookshank.]

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, to leave out "such."
This Amendment and the following Amendment on the Paper, deal with a point which was raised during the discussions in Committee. An Amendment was then moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to deal with the position of the working proprietor. The effect of his Amendment was not to remove the working proprietor from the whole scheme, that is to say, not to prevent the coal which the working proprietor owns from vesting in the Commission, but to remove the working proprietor from the scheme of compensation. The idea was that he should get no compensation but that he should be entitled to a lease at a peppercorn rent. I explained at that time the reasons why the Government felt it impossible to accept an Amendment of that kind, or to draw that distinction between the ordinary royalty owner and the working proprietor. I pointed out the effect which such an Amendment would have on the valuation and on the finance of the scheme as a whole. But I think there was general agreement that, in some respects, the working proprietor stands in a position different from that of the ordinary royalty owner.
The working proprietor in many cases has bought his coal as a sort of raw' material for his factory. He has been encouraged to do so in many public speeches, on the ground that the ownership and the working of coal should go together, and it has been generally regarded as an economic and thoughtful action on the part of these undertakings. I certainly do not want the application of Part I of the Measure—which is intended, wherever possible, to help the operation of colliery undertakings, both as regards profits and employment to start with the infliction of a definite hardship or setback on particular undertakings. When I told the House in Committee that I was unable to accept any Amendment of that kind, I also said I would consider whether it was possible to give the Coal Commission discretion to take into account hard cases where substantial financial loss might be caused, and to meet those cases, not in the way suggested by my hon. Friend's Amendment but in the way of granting more favourable terms.
The effect therefore of this Amendment is that instead of the Commission being bound to give the working proprietor a new lease on the customary terms, or if there are no customary terms on terms that might be considered reasonable, they can take into account all the circumstances, such as the compensation which has been paid and the customary rent which would otherwise be paid and they are given discretion to grant a lease on terms lower than the customary terms. I wish to make it plain that this is purely a matter of discretion. No right whatever is given to the working proprietor to claim, in any circumstances, a lower rent. But the Amendment gives the Commission, in cases of hardship which, in their opinion, some steps should be taken to mitigate, power to grant a lease on terms lower than those which are customarily given.

8.40 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I think we must give this proposal the prize for involved draftsmanship so far in this Bill. If what the right hon. Gentleman desires is to alter the Clause in the way he has indicated why not insert the words
subject to such conditions as may in the circumstances seem reasonable to the Commission.
Let me read the words which it is proposed by the next Amendment to insert:


not more onerous than the conditions customary in the district or, where there are no customary conditions or the customary conditions are not applicable, than the conditions to which a person not entitled to the benefit of this section might reasonably have been expected to agree, and the Commission may grant a lease to the person entitled on conditions less onerous than the conditions aforesaid where it appears to them that the situation of that person in respect of the business of coal-mining carried on by him would otherwise be unduly unfavourable as compared with his situation in that respect as owner of the fee simple in the premises.
It is perfectly impossible to operate or even to translate that. First of all, instead of deciding—as under the old Clause—what conditions are reasonable the Commission have to decide on the conditions, to which:
a person not entitled to the benefit of this section might reasonably have been expected to agree.
I have never known words of that kind in an Act of Parliament. I know what a reasonable man might be expected to do but what a person "might reasonably be expected to agree to," I have not any idea at all. I do not think that any court would ever decide such a point, and this is a matter which, presumably, would have to be decided by the courts in every case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Supposing somebody challenges the Commission as to whether they are acting in accordance with their duty or not.

Mr. Peake: It goes to arbitration.

Sir S. Cripps: It does not make any difference whether it is a court or an arbitrator. It has to be decided judicially. Then the proposed wording goes on—
The Commission may grant a lease to the person entitled on conditions less onerous"—
Less onerous to whom? To the Commission or to the person?—
than the conditions aforesaid where it appears to them that the situation of that person in respect of the business of coal-mining carried on by him would otherwise be unduly unfavourable"—
What does "otherwise" mean, unless they give him the benefit of better conditions?—
as compared with his situation in that respect as owner of the fee simple in the premises.
What premises? The coal mine? But I thought the right hon. Gentleman spoke about some premises which were attached to the coal mine. Otherwise I do not

understand the point. Why not make it "his fee simple." I thought the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a case in which a man had a factory or works close to a coal mine and where there were particular advantages—or disadvantages—in having the coal mine there in his own possession and where he was encouraged to have it. Surely, we ought to legislate on these matters with a view to clarifying the position, instead of obfuscating it. It would be far better to say here
subject to such conditions as may, in the circumstances, be reasonable in the opinion of the Commission.
That covers everything and is easy to understand and would be much better than the proposed form of words.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is very difficult to follow this wording, but I gather that the Clause proposes to deal with the colliery owner who is also the owner of a forge or other works, I understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert words which would have the effect of giving the Commission power to grant leases over coal which was hitherto not leasehold but which is now to be taken over by the Commission. I do not think there ought to be a great deal of difficulty about it. We already have in the industry a method of assessing the royalty value of coal owned by a colliery owner. Royalty is part of the cost of production in the ascertainment, which eventually determines wages, and there is provision already made by which the royalty owner charges up the royalty which he does not pay in his own accounts. That is easily ascertainable. Ever since 1921 every owner who owns his own coal and has been working it has been charging up, every quarter or whatever the term may be, an assumed royalty payment, and therefore there is a fixed sum of so much per ton—4d., 6d., or 8d., as the case may be—which he himself has charged and which has been agreed by the owners' auditors and the workmen's auditors. Generally the provision is that owners of such property have charged in their accounts the average royalty for the district. If since 1921 they have thought they were entitled to charge in their accounts the average royalty for the district, surely there would be no hardship in accepting their own assessment. I agree


that they ought to be protected, that they ought to have new leases, and that they ought not to be placed in a more unfavourable position than any other owner, but neither should they be placed in a more favourable position, and I think there is good ground for stating that their own assessment ought now to be accepted and that they ought to be granted a lease upon the terms which they have themselves fixed and had accepted by the auditors ever since 1921.
There is another point. In assessing the global sum, I presume the value of these freehold royalties is taken on the basis which the owners have themselves fixed. Suppose a royalty owner works his own coal and will now take part of this global sum, the share of the sum which he will get will be related to the amount of royalty which is already fixed and has been since 1921, and it seems to me, therefore, that there is no need for this Amendment. Granting that these working proprietors, as they are called, ought to be given a lease to enable them to continue in production as they are now, I do not see any difficulty whatsoever in the way. I think it is a fair proposition to make that the Commission should grant them a lease to work their coal in future, and that the royalty charged should be the same as they have actually been charging into their accounts since 1921.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for having tried to put into words the principle, which I think was agreed in all parts of the House during the Committee stage, that the position of a colliery owner should not be made worse owing to the fact that he had purchased the coal which his colliery was working. My right hon. Friend's Amendment is an attempt to embody that principle in words, but I must confess that I was in a large measure of accord with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) as regards the phraseology of the Amendment. In particular, I think it will be exceedingly difficult for an arbitrator to decide what is the meaning of the words "unduly unfavourable." Obviously circumstances may be unfavourable or favourable, but when you qualify that by the word "unduly," it seems to me that the arbitrator or the court will be confronted with a very difficult problem. I think the problem which my right hon. Friend had to solve

could have been solved in a very much easier way, by inserting in the Bill words to the effect that the conditions of the new lease should be fair and equitable to all the parties, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. At the same time, I am thankful to my right hon. Friend for small mercies, and I shall support his Amendment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member see any justification for such a proprietor getting more favourable terms than the amount of royalty which he has been charging in the accounts since 1921?

Mr. Peake: Obviously, until all the valuations are completed, which will take three or four years, it is impossible to say, as regards any particular proprietor, whether or not he will suffer as a result of the proposals in the Bill. It is not until after the valuation has been made that one will be able to decide whether the terms of the new lease ought to be less onerous.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: This is what comes of making concessions to the owners, as a result of which we find ourselves in a hopeless muddle, because no one knows what the meaning of this Amendment is. Even the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who himself asked for this concession, is quite unable to comprehend it, and while he thanks the right hon. Gentleman for what he regards as a concession, he really thinks it is no concession at all. I suggest that the Attorney-General might favour us with a few words on this subject in order to clarify our minds. We ought to assure ourselves that what we are accepting is at least understood, so that there should be justice dispensed in the proper quarters. I must confess myself to be even more befogged than was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He understands legal phraseology, but I do not pretend to understand it at all. After all, we are legislating for common people, some of them very common people, and we ought to use language that is really understood by them. I hope the Government can satisfy us on that head.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I frankly own that I am not wedded to the actual wording of the


Amendment. The double negative "unduly unfavourable" is rather difficult to follow, but I hope that between now and the various stages through which this Bill has to go, when we may have more leisure than there has been, in view of the immense amount of drafting that has had to be done since the Committee stage, we shall be able to improve the wording. It is not quite as simple as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) stated, for this reason: I do not want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) under any misapprehension. Whereas, of course, there was the right of the working proprietor to a lease on the customary terms, if he does not think he is getting what are really the customary terms, the discretion of the Commission to remedy what they think is a hardship, by granting terms less onerous, is their sole discretion and not a right conferred upon the colliery proprietor and not, therefore, subject to arbitration. It is to some extent with the idea of making that distinction that the Clause has been drafted in this rather cumbrous form. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made an interesting point, but I think that to some extent he was answered by my hon. Friend. It will not be known whether there are any cases of hardship until the compensation has been determined and the customary rent is known, but I certainly agree that the notional royalty which the company has hitherto charged itself would obviously be an important factor in the decision of the Commission on whether it was a case in which they should use their discretion or not. I will look into the wording of this Clause and see whether at a subsequent stage we cannot make it both shorter and simpler.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In fixing the global sum when the coal was assessed in value, was not the notional royalty the actual royalty used to assess the value of the coal, and, therefore, has it not already been accepted in that connection?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 6, leave out from "otherwise," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
not more onerous to the lessee than the conditions customary in the district or, where there are no customary conditions or the customary conditions are not applicable, than

the conditions to which a person not entitled to the benefit of this Section might reasonably have been expected to agree, and the Commission may grant a lease to the person entitled on conditions less onerous than the conditions aforesaid where it appears to them that the situation of that person in respect of the business of coal-mining carried on by him would otherwise be unduly unfavourable as compared with his situation in that respect as owner of the fee simple in the premises."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to obtaining information for purposes of Part 1.)

8.58 p.m.

Captain Grookshank: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, after "relating," to insert "solely."

This Amendment and the next two Amendments on this Clause go together. The object of them is to carry out an undertaking which was given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who pointed out that in the Clause as printed there seemed to be a possibility of the Commission being snowed under with documents and information which they really did not require. This group of Amendments puts that, position right, because the last thing we want to do is to cumber the archives of the Commission with unnecessary documents. We accept the view that the present owners are entitled to retain for themselves the plans, surveys and so on with regard to the surface as well as the coal itself. The position of the Commission is amply safeguarded by Sub-section (3), under which they have the right to the production of documents which they require.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 15, line 7, leave out "and."

"In page 15, line 12, at the end, insert
and
(c) documents which, whilst relating solely to the management of coal or a mine of coal, relate to matters of management that touch or concern other land in which the person to whom the documents belonged is interested at the vesting date."—[Captain Crookshank.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 15, leave out "being coal or a mine of coal," and insert:
vested in them by virtue of this Part of this Act.—"[The Attorney-General.]

9.1 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, to leave out the first "sub-section" and to insert "section."
The purpose of this Clause is to provide that if the Commission desire to work underground they shall not be impeded by the fact that they may be technically committing a trespass. It is not desired that they should have the power to do damage without bearing the cost of it, but without this Clause they might be technically trespassing if they were carrying on operations below the surface of other people's ground. It was suggested in Committee that the Clause as drafted did not adequately provide for access when their underground operations might injure other people's underground workings, and it was also suggested that the wording of what, was then sub-section (2) was somewhat obscure with regard to their rights in respect of existing easements. By a series of four Amendments we are abolishing sub-section (2) and inserting two new paragraphs (d) and (e). Paragraph (d) makes it clear that they cannot exercise the rights conferred by this Clause as against existing servitudes, restrictive covenants or statutory prohibitions or restrictions adversely affecting the land, and paragraph (e) provides generally that they shall not use their powers under this Clause to excuse themselves from liability if they do actual damage.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I take it that on this Amendment we are also considering the subsequent Amendments?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: That being so, I want to make it clear that we are not satisfied with the position of the Government in respect of paragraph (e), which refers to:
Any other act which if this section had not been enacted would be actionable as a trespass or as a nuisance and which, if done, would cause actual damage of a substantial amount.
I think there is a fundamental divergence of opinion on the principle. This Clause relates to what are, in fact, wayleaves, the right to operate on ground other than ground which is in itself utilised for coal-producing purposes, but which provides access to the coal which is to be produced.

Generally speaking, no exception can be taken to the Government's proposed Amendment, but if the Attorney-General is right in assuming that we ought not to impede any legitimate action by the Commission in the discharge of their duties it is difficult to understand why he asked the House to accept the proviso in paragraph (e), because here the Commission are to be restricted in respect of certain access. I did not understand in the discussion which took place on the Committee stage that the desire was expressed in any quarter of the Committee in asking the Government to reconsider this matter that they should place further restrictions on the operations of the Commission. I think that a further explanation is required before hon. Members on this side will accept paragraph (e).

9.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I do not think the hon. Member has paid sufficient regard to the words at the end of the paragraph,
and which, if done, would cause actual damage.
The main intention of this Clause is to give the. Commission full power to do anything underground as long as they are not causing actual damage. Their rights against certain owners and that kind of thing are dealt with in another part of the Bill. The only purpose of this Clause is to prevent someone who happens to own the surface saying, "I believe the Commission are making a tunnel 2,000 feet below the surface; that is technically in my name, and therefore I am going to the courts to get an injunction to prevent them from doing it." The object of the Clause is to prevent the owner doing that. It was pointed out in the Committee stage that there might be adjoining workings which might be damaged. This Clause restricts the Commission to acts which will not cause actual damage of a substantial amount, but it prevents the Commission being impeded by workings which might technically be regarded as trespass.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 26, leave out the second "subsection," and insert "section."

In line 31, leave out "or."

in line 32, at the end, insert:
(d) to do any other act in respect of any land which, if this section had not been


enacted, would be actionable by virtue of any servitude, restrictive covenant, or statutory prohibition or restriction adversely affecting that land; or
(e) to do any other act which, if this section had not been enacted, would be actionable as a trespass or as a nuisance and which, if done, would cause actual damage of a substantial amount."—[The Attorney-General.]

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 16, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where the owner of any such underground land or the occupiers thereof, or any person who would be the occupier thereof but for the occupation thereof by the Commission or their licensee under this section, desires to carry out in that land any works, but the carrying out thereof is prevented or interfered with by any works or occupation of the Commission or its licensee under this section, the Commission shall be liable to pay to the owner or occupier compensation for that prevention or interference.
The point raised by this proposed Subsection is a small one. Clause 14 gives the Commission powers to grant liences to do underground workings in certain circumstances, but it makes no provision for cases in which the Commission declined to grant a licence. It is possible that the owner might wish to mine other minerals in a place where there is a coal mine, and in that case it is surely reasonable that he should have a right to obtain a licence. This Sub-section provides that if such a case is refused he shall have the right to compensation.

Major Hills: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.12 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the effect of the Clause. The intention of it is to give the Commission power either themselves or by their licensee to go under-ground in circumstances in which their activities will not damage anybody else. It does not impede anybody else going underground on his own land by himself or by his licensee to make any investigation which he likes with regard to other minerals which he may desire to work. Therefore, if my hon. Friend thinks that this Clause might prevent somebody else going on his own land he is under a misapprehension. We have inserted words to make it clear that under this Clause the Commission can act only as long as they do not do any damage to anybody, but the Clause prevents them from being impeded by some technical

action for trespass. If the adjoining landowner has other minerals or rights in connection with the surface which the Commission's borings would damage, then they cannot do it under this Clause. We have made it clear that this Clause is solely concerned with enabling them to go about underground provided they are not impeding or damaging other people's supply of coal.

Mr. Denman: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 33, leave out Sub-section (2).—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Commission to have exclusive right to search and bore for coal.)

9.14 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, to leave out "or by a coal-mining lease."
This and the next Amendment are only drafting. The Committee made some alterations and the result was that it was not clear exactly what was intended. It was, of course, intended that the Commission should give the right to search or bore, and the Amendment reserves the right in the case of those who have it now under the Working Facilities Order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 9, after "do," insert:
or a person having the right so to do by virtue of a retained interest subject to which the coal in question is vested in the Commission."—[Captain Crookshank.]

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 17, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where any facility, right, or privilege is required to enable the Commission to search or bore for coal in order that searching or boring may be effectively carried out the Commission shall have power to exercise such facility, right, or privilege subject to the payment of compensation to the person upon or through whose land the said operation, or either of them, is carried out.
(3) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such rights shall include—

(a) a right to let down the surface;
(b) a right of air-way, shaft-way, or surface or underground wayleave, or other right for the purpose of access to or conveyance of minerals or the ventilation or drainage of the borings;


(c) a right to use and occupy the surface for the erection of railways, tramways, roads, buildings, or other works, or of dwellings for persons employed in connection with the borings;
(d) a right to obtain a supply of water or other substances in connection with the borings;
(e) a right to dispose of water or other liquid matter obtained from the borings.
(4) Compensation for the exercise of any such facility, right, or privilege shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the term "search or bore for coal" which is contained in the Clause shall include all the rights referred to in Sub-section (3) of the Amendment. It would make certain that the Commission, in the discharge of this duty, shall have not only those rights but any subsidiary or accompanying rights which are essential to the discharge of their functions. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to assure us that the term "search or bore for coal" includes those rights. I gather that might well be so, and it would then be unnecessary for us to press the Amendment. I should like to have that assurance from him before we make up our minds.

9.19 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the rights and the possibility of securing the rights are in the Bill, although they are not there in the form in which the Amendment is drawn, needless to say. Under Clause 28, it is possible for the Commission, by going to the Railway and Canal Commission, to secure those rights. It will also be within the power of the Commission to acquire
the benefit of any right to be exercised in respect of any land for a coal-mining purpose.
If I may take him still further, on page 33 of the Bill he will find a definition of a coal-mining purpose. In Clause 38 it states that it includes
searching and boring for.… coal.
The channel by which they act is the Railway and Canal Commission for the right in specific cases. Probably that explanation answers the specific question. If it does not do so, I will amplify it.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that not limit the power of the Commission? The general

powers referred to in Clause 15 include the right to search or bore, and there is no stipulation as to approaching the Railway and Canal Commission. If the Commission, in discharge of its duty, has to approach the Railway and Canal Commission, the carrying out of their task may be considerably impeded. I am not at all sure that this is not the Clause where the express stipulation should be inserted.

Captain Crookshank: Of course the Commission can get what they want by agreement, but what happens if they cannot get it by agreement is very much the same sort of procedure as exists in other legislation. The Commission would naturally try to get any rights amicably by agreement, but if it could not, it has to have recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission.

9.21 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely that is not very satisfactory. Here is a public authority entitled to do certain things and to go and bore for coal. Any other colliery in a similar position would have the entitlement to get the necessary land and other powers necessary to enable it to carry out its purpose. It would not have to go to some Railway and Canal Commission in order to get it. When you give a company power to run a railway you give power to acquire land to run the railway. You give the power when you incorporate it. All we want to do is to give exactly the same power to the Coal Commission that any other public authority has, in order that it may carry out its duty without having to go and get those powers from some other body.
It is an entirely new idea that when you have an obligation to search and bore for coal you do not give the body upon which you impose the obligation the means for carrying out that obligation except by the indirect method of putting them under the control of another body. The right people to know whether or not they ought to go on certain land or bore in certain places is the Commission and not the railways, who have nothing to do with it. That arrangement may have been all right in the old days in order to protect the rights of a private individual from another private individual and in order to decide between two private individuals which of them  enforce his conditions upon the 


but where you set up a public body you must surely give that public body the power to carry out its work. We are asking for something different from the old power to get permission from the Railway and Canal Commission, We should give these people the full equipment necessary to do what this Clause says they have to do without putting them in an impossible difficulty and in a position which may lead to a great

deal of expense and litigation, which is very undesirable. We ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider it. We believe that without such a provision the Commission will be seriously hampered in carrying out what will become an essential part of its functions.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 188.

Division No. 515.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson. T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar G.
Leach, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Dunn, E (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Edwards, Sir C, (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
MacLaren, A.



Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Findlay, Sir E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Gomdr, P. G.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fleming, E. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)
Foot, D. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Balniel, Lord
Cross, R. H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Crossley, A. C.
Gledhill, G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Culverwell, C. T.
Coldie, N. B.


Beechman, N. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bernays, R. H.
Dawson, Sir P.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Boulton, W. W.
Denville, Alfred
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dodd, J. S.
Grimston, R. V.


Bracken, B.
Donner, P. W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Guinness. T. L. E. B.


Brass, Sir W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan. J. A. L.
Hambro, A. V.


Bull, B. B.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hannah, I. C.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eckersley, P. T.
Harbord, A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Harvey, Sir G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emery, J. F.
Haslam, H. G, (Horncastle)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Christie, J. A
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)




Higgs, W. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Holdsworth, H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hopkinson, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morgan, R. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Spens, W. P.


Hunter, T.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Storey, S.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Keeling, E. H.
Owen, Major G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Karr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Peake, O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Peat, C. U.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Petherick, M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lees-Jones, J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, G. C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pilkington, R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commandar R. L.


Levy, T.
Radford, E. A.
Turton, R. H.


Lewis, O.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lipson, D. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lyons, A. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, S. R


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ross Taylor. W. Woodbridge)
White, H. Graham


Macdonald, Capt. P. (isle of Wight)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Maitland, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mander, G. le M.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wragg, H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. O.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Non. H. D. R.
Savery, Sir Servington



Markham, S. F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

CLAUSE 16.—(Coal not to be alienated from the Commission.)

9.33 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 17, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(5) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Section shall affect the acquisition or granting of a servitude adversely affecting coal or a mine of coal, or the acquisition or granting under any enactment of any liberty, privilege, easement, right or advantage, adversely affecting coal or a mine of coal.
The point of this new paragraph is to make it clear that in future no free interest in coal or a mine of coal can be granted as against the Commission, except as is already provided for under the Clause. That does not mean that it would not be possible in future for a servitude adversely affecting coal to be acquired or granted. The chief case which we have in mind is where the Railway and Canal Commission, for example, might make an Order granting rights to bore for oil, and I think there is a specific case where the grant has been made in an area where there are some coal strata. That would, in effect, be one of the adverse rights created by the Railway and Canal Commission for another purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Amendments of working facilities enactments.)

9.35 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, to leave out "this Sub-section shall not affect."
This is one of three Amendments which are linked together, and the object of which is to transfer from the Railway and Canal Commission to the Commission set up under this Measure the power to review, rescind or vary an existing Working Facilities Order. I think it will be generally agreed that, once thee minerals have been acquired, and the Coal Commission has been set up; the position so far as regards the Railway and Canal Commission is different from what it was when that Commission was the only body dealing with these matters. We think that the Coal Commission could very well do this reviewing, and that it would be better done by them than by the Railway and Canal Commission.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.36 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The working facilities right is, as I said just now, really, in certain instances, equivalent to a lease, in that it gives to the person concerned the same sort of right that he


might have got in other circumstances by a lease or licence. While I do not wish to go too far back on what we have already passed this afternoon, it is only right, in connection with this Amendment, to point out to the House that, under Clause 5 (4), working facilities rights are retained interests, that is to say, they are not affected by the Bill. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, it would be a direct contradiction at any rate of that Clause. A more serious reason against this proposal is the fact that the Railway and Canal Commission is a judicial body. It may be that, as the Mover of the Amendment says, in future the relationship between the Coal Commission and the Railway and Canal Commission will not be quite the same as in the case of private individuals, but the Railway and Canal Commission still remains a judicial body, and I do not think that most legal Members of the House would agree that a statutory body, however eminent and however good it may be, like the Coal Commission, should have the power, as it would if these Amendments were accepted, of overriding the judicial powers of a judicial Commission. That is something which we certainly could not recommend the House to insert. Incidentally, too, by the very Orders which they themselves grant, the Railway and Canal Commission reserve to themselves the right of varying the Order in certain circumstances, and I think that to go back on the decision of a judicial body which has acted as a judicial body in granting rights which are a retained interest under Clause 5 of the Bill, and to leave it to the Coal Commission to deal as it pleases with rights of that kind, is to go outside the bounds of possibility. Accordingly, with all due deference, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

9.39 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Gentleman looks upon the Commission set up under this Bill as nothing but a sort of glorified private individual, having to be controlled in exactly the same way as a private individual. Working facilities have been granted by the Railway and Canal Commission, either through the refusal of some private individual to allow them in the national interest, or because there are so many different owners of the

property that it is impossible to get a lease from all of them with any sort of convenience, and, therefore, the Railway and Canal Commission grants it. In future, that will all disappear. When the Coal Commission take over, it may very well be that the Coal Commission will think it better to vary the leases or working facilities rights which have been granted by the Railway and Canal Commission, because now, for the first time, the ownership will all be in the Coal Commission, which may be able to make very useful and helpful variations in these working conditions by planning them together with the leases that it can itself grant. If you are going to leave the question of facilities, and of rescinding or reviewing or varying them, in the hands of the Railway and Canal Commission, who have no control over the Coal Commission and who cannot compel the Coal Commission to aggregate the subject-matter of a Working Facilities Order, for instance, with some other lease, you are going to have a sort of diarchy with regard to this area of coal production which seems to us to be extremely inimical to a successful outcome of the Coal Commission's work.
This only deals with a very limited area of the functions of the Railway and Canal Commission; it only deals with the area in which they have granted these working facilities, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly said, are really equivalent to compulsory leases; and surely, in view of the fact that the sole ownership will vest in the Coal Commission in the future the discretion as to whether there should be any review or rescinding or variation can only be exercised by some body which can also control the acts of the Coal Commission. Otherwise, the discretion cannot be usefully or properly exercised. How can the Railway and Canal Commission know whether it is advisable or wise to vary or rescind one of these Orders? It is only the Coal Commission who can know, because they will be dealing with all the other property in the vicinity, and they will know whether it is wiser or better that these facilities should be put into one lease or another, or whether these powers should be continued in one company or another. You are not dealing with rivalries between individual owners of property, as was always the case in the past; you are now dealing with the wisdom of planning the


output of coal nationally, and that is a matter with which the Railway and Canal Commission are quite unfitted to deal. They are all right as a judicial body, to decide between one set of private owners and another set of private owners, but when it comes to planning the industry with a knowledge of all the surrounding circumstances, the Coal Commission are the people who would have the knowledge.
We are not attempting here to get any advantage for the Coal Commission, or to give it a particular flavour or colour. All that we want is to get some efficiency into the carrying out of the work of the Coal Commission. If, while the Coal Commission are trying to consolidate leases or something of that kind, the Railway and Canal Commission make some Order with regard to working facilities which is quite opposite in policy to that of the Coal (Commission, it will merely lead to difficulties and spoil the chances of proper co-ordination of the leasing system and the working facilities system. We ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to

pass this by as something which cannot be done because the Railway and Canal Commission in the past have done it as a judicial body. The whole circumstances have completely altered, and, in these altered circumstances, we want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that it would be much wiser and better, and more convenient in every way, if the Coal Commission, who will have this full knowledge both of their own policy and of what they themselves are doing with regard to this matter, deal in future with these so-called compulsory leases, that have to be varied or rescinded, rather than leave them in the hands of a judicial body which will have no knowledge at all to help it as regards the wise disposal of coal leases. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore, to accept these Amendments.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 100.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[9.47 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Holdsworth, H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hopkinson, A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Aske, Sir R. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Eckersley, P. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunter, T.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Beaumont, Han. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Beechman, N. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bernays, R. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Findlay, Sir E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bracken, B.
Fleming, E. L.
Levy, T.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Foot, D. M.
Lewis, O.


Brass, Sir W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Liddall, W. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lipson, D. L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lyons, A. M.


Bull, B. B.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gledhill, G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Christie, J. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maitland, A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Grimston, R. V.
Mander, G. le M.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)
Gunsten, Capt. Sir D. W.
Markham, S. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hambro, A. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cross, R. H.
Harbord, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Sir G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morgan, R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Dawson, Sir P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Munro, P.


Denville, Alfred
Higgs, W. F.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Dodd, J. S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh




Owen, Major G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Peake, O.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Peat, C. U.
Salmon, Sir I.
Touche, G. C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Savery, Sir Servington
Turton, R. H.


Petherick, M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Selley, H. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wells, S. R.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
White, H. Graham


Rayner, Major R. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Spens, W. P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Storey, S.
Wragg, H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)



Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tasker, Sir R. 1.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Furness.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, RI. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whiltechapel)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams. T. (Don Valley)


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Atlercliffe)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.



Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 21.—(Reduction by the Commission of Rents.)

9.54 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 22, line 41, after "that," to insert:
(a) this Sub-section shall have effect without prejudice to the right of the Commission, in a case in which it appears to them requisite for the proper discharge of their duty under Section two of this Act so to do, to grant relief to a lessee from payment of particular instalments of rent reserved by a lease; and
(b)
This Clause deals with the possibility of the reduction by the Commission of rents. The question was raised during the Committee stage on Sub-section (3), as to whether it would be possible for the

Commission to reduce rents if an undertaking came across some physical or economic difficulties during the currency of its lease. The House will recollect that under the Clause the rents may be reduced in certain circumstances, in Subsection (2), when a surplus becomes available at the disposal of the Commission. Sub-section (3) of the Clause lays it down that the Commission shall not reduce any rents during the currency of the lease except in the general way already outlined in Sub-section (2), but, on the contrary, shall reserve the best rent which in their opinion can reasonably be obtained, having regard to certain things. There is the proviso that


they may reduce the rent reserved by a lease, or may grant a lease reserving a rent less than the best rent, if they are satisfied that by doing that there is a financial advantage substantially equivalent in value to the amount of the reduction.
That does not anticipate physical difficulties, which, as hon. Members who are versed in these affairs know, may occur at any moment, and does not take into account any economic difficulties which may come the way of a particular undertaking. When we were discussing this matter in Committee, I said that I thought that, as far as physical difficulties were concerned, one might be able to find words covering physical difficulties, but that economic difficulties were not quite as easy in the way of drafting or definition. My right hon. Friend proposes this proviso to the House in order to get over that particular difficulty. The proviso is that this Sub-section
shall have effect without prejudice to the right of the Commission.… to grant relief to a lessee from payment of particular instalments of rent reserved by a lease
in cases where it seems to be necessary for the proper discharge of their duties under Section 2 of the Act. I must remind the House that that refers to the duty of the Commission to control and manage premises which they acquire by granting leases, in such manner consistently with the provisions of the Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry. That is a sort of statutory charter of how they are generally to deal with these problems. If the Commission are satisfied, in the interests of efficiency and better organisation of the industry, that it is desirable in particular cases, owing to physical or economic difficulties, that a particular lessee should have some reduction made, not permanent but in the nature of relief from instalments of the rent reserved by the lease, then, under the new proviso which we are inviting the House to insert, the Commission will be able to do it. I believe that it will meet the difficulty, and will enable the Commission to function—as, I am sure, all of us, wherever we sit in this House, would wish it to function—to the best possible advantage. A good landlord to-day does offer remissions of rent in case of difficulty, and a statutory Commission ought to be as good as the

best landlord. These words are devised to carry out the undertaking which I gave on the Committee stage and are really fitted for the purpose for which they are intended.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after "do," to insert:
and in consideration of a person nominated by the Commission being appointed the manager of the coal mine the subject of the lease.
The Amendment of the Minister proposes that there should be relief altogether from rent during some period of the working of the pits, and it is proposed in the Amendment which I have moved, that, if there is to be relief of that nature, the interests of the nation, which are safeguarded and looked after by the Commission, should be further safeguarded by the Commission having the right to appoint a manager during that period. If a coal mine or any other industry gets into the hands of the banks, it is not an unusual thing for those who are holding the baby to provide a manager to look after it, to see whether it is possible to bring the particular industry or mine out of its difficult period, and to try and make it pay. I have had experience of a mine being in the hands of a receiver, and while a manager was not actually appointed in that case, there were clerks placed in the colliery office to see to the buying and selling which took place at the pits. This release of rent which is a subsidy to the particular company, would place them in an advantageous position compared with other collieries, and if that is to be done a manager should be appointed. I have two collieries in mind which would have been working probably if something of this nature had been done, and probably a thousand men who had been thrown idle would have been working.
If the subsidy is to be given, the Commission should have someone to manage the pit in their interests, so as to ensure the mine being worked in the best interests. It is not always the fault of the manager that mines do not pay. There are managing directors and there are agents, and sometimes very stupid directors, who determine what the manager has to do. The manager is the servant of the directors, and under the thumb of the colliery agent. Only last year I was approached by two colliery managers who


asked me, if I had an opportunity when the Coal Mines Bill came before the House of Commons, to make out a case for colliery managers to be independent and paid by the State. You can have a colliery not paying, and it may not be the manager's fault. You allow the manager to continue and the pit may continue not to pay, and the case may arise when this levy or subsidy may be required, but the poor manager dare not report to the Commission the reason why the pit is not paying. If the manager were appointed by the Commission, although he would be under the directors and would report to them on the working of the pit, he would be independent to a certain extent, because they would not be able to sack him. It would be the Commission that would have the right to dismiss him.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I do not think that the Secretary for Mines has helped very much with the new Amendment that he has suggested should be inserted. Presumably, this assistance will be given when a colliery may be experiencing physical or economic difficulties. Early in the Debate, references were made, and I think accepted by the House, to the fact that a colliery might be in financial difficulties, not paying its way, for purely a temporary period. For instance, many hon. Members know of collieries with which they have been associated where a considerable amount of expenditure has been incurred with a view ultimately to economising in the general working of the colliery. The pit may be 20, 30 or 40 years old and may have a long, winding roadway running underground into many miles, and the company may decide to short circuit this. That means invariably adding considerably but temporarily to the expenditure incurred in the working of that colliery; but it is an expenditure that almost invariably it pays the colliery to indulge in. I do not think that any concession should be made in a case of that kind.
I presume that no one knows what will be the composition of the Commission, whether they will be gentlemen expert in coal mining or whether they will know very little about it. We know some of the positions that will arise. Those of us

who have had experience in working at collieries, or have been associated with collieries in some other way, know that collieries may apparently be losing money, but we know very well that that is fictitious accounting, and that a considerable proportion of the colliery's output goes to neighbouring iron and steel works owned by the same company. It may be a colliery which has on a pit bank nearby a huge by-product works, to which a great deal of the output of the colliery goes, and that by-product works is owned by the colliery company. We have had to draw the attention of more than one Commission to the fact that coal has been transferred by the owners of collieries to their own iron and steel works or other kind of works, at nominal or fictitious prices. We know the ease with which the books of a colliery company can show a loss, when in fact the whole of the loss has been manufactured, either deliberately or by some other means.
I support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment because the whole of our experience teaches us that such an Amendment is necessary, otherwise the old practice against which we have protested for at least a generation will be carried on, and the Commission may be misled. I hope that the Commission will be empowered to put in an expert colliery manager who will understand the workings of the colliery and be able to say in a short time whether the colliery is losing money, or experiencing any economic or financial difficulty as a result of physical or other difficulties over which the company have no control, or whether the difficulties have been deliberately manufactured, as we have seen them so frequently manufactured in our past association with coal-mining.

10.13 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that it ought to be adopted in respect of any of the undertakings to which I referred in my Amendment, before they get any remission in rent. He used the phrase: "Before they draw the subsidy." I must, in the interests of precision and accuracy, say that that is not the proper interpretation, in the ordinary sense, of the words: "a reduction in rent." The hon. Member may think it is, but other people do not. What my Amendment


proposes is that the Commission shall have the power to grant remissions of rent, if it thinks fit. The Mover of the present Amendment said that if there were either physical or economic difficulties, they would not necessarily be the fault of the manager. Certainly, there can be physical difficulties without there being any fault on the manager's part, and it need not necessarily be the fault of the manager if the undertaking gets into other difficulties. The hon. Member said that in order to ensure fair working the colliery manager should be as independent as possible. I think he overlooked the fact that this Amendment, if it means anything, means that when the Commission wishes to make a reduction in a particular instalment of rent, they can only do so when they have nominated someone as manager. That ipso facto means that the existing manager has been got rid of.
If that is not so, and if they are going to nominate the existing manager, it is a more foolish proposal than I thought. The assumption is that they are dissatisfied with the existing manager, or fear that somehow or other they had been misled as to the financial state of the company, and that they will put in some one of their own so that in future there will be no misleading of anyone; the Commission will have its own man at the pit as the manager who will see exactly what is going on. While I cannot accept these various premises, the conclusion to which I have come is that whether the plan is a good one or not it is quite contrary to what we have already passed in the Bill in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), which says that the Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining. If they are going to nominate the manager of a colliery to see that everything is above-board, that no bogus losses are shown, that is to engage in the business of coal-mining if words mean anything.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain how the Commission can absolutely satisfy itself that such losses are genuine?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot elaborate what steps the Commission which is not yet in existence will take to satisfy itself on a matter of that kind, but I am certain it would take the same steps as any good landlord does to-day, and that whatever means are available to a good land- 
lord will be used by the Commission, and perhaps other means as well. I want to make this point clear. Either the new nominated manager is going to be somehow or other the servant of the Commission—that is one possibility and if that is so we are going contrary to what we have passed in Clause 2—or he is to remain the servant of the company which employs him—that is the other alternative. He is to be nominated by the Commission but is to remain the servant of the undertaking which employs him. It is an impossible position for anyone to be nominated by an outside body and be the servant of another undertaking, which might not like the man and might say that he has not the proper qualification. Yet it is proposed to put him in by Statute. [Interruption.] It is said that it is competent for the Commission to reduce the rent if the undertaking is up against some difficulty either physical or economic, but I thought I made it quite plain that it is no good saying, "Make them pay the rent" because they do not like the manager which the Commission has appointed against their wishes. I cannot recommend the House to accept this proposed Amendment to the Amendment.

10.20 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Member has very little knowledge, I imagine, of the management of property. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman never heard of a receiver being put into mortgaged property?

Captain Crookshank: That is another story.

Sir S. Cripps: It is not another story. It is a story where payments which are due for the property from the mortgagor to the mortgagee are not paid, and in those circumstances the mortgagee has the right to appoint a receiver, who is the servant of the mortgagor, although appointed by the mortgagee. That is an every-day practice all over the country as regards property of all sorts and kinds. It is not at all extraordinary or odd that one person should appoint somebody by Statute who becomes, by Statute, the servant of another person. That is a common practice carried out every day in every town of this country as regards mortgages under the Law of Property Act. Really, it only discloses the hon. and gallant Gentleman's profound ignorance when he makes the sort of speech


he has just made. Let me pass now to the realities of this Amendment. In the first place, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that relief of rent is not a subsidy. Has he ever heard of the expression "subsidised rents"? It is a common expression. Where a rent is less than an economic rent, the difference between the actual rent and the economic rent is the subsidy, and it is therefore always referred to as a subsidised rent. I venture to think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman got someone to pay the rent of his house for him, he would not be averse to saying that he was being subsidised to the extent of his rent by the other person. I am not suggesting it should happen. I merely want to make the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mouth water.

Captain Crookshank: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman making an offer?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not making an offer. If ever I subsidise somebody, it will be somebody more useful and better that he is. Secondly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Amendment is contrary to Clause 2. It is nothing of the sort. This is not an Amendment by which the Coal Commission would engage in the management. It is a position where they would do just as the mortgagee does, that is to say, nominate a man who is to become the servant of the company. If the company, for any reason whatever, is in receipt of a subsidy from the Coal Commission, why should not the Coal Commission during the period the subsidy is paid, have someone to guard their interests, to see whether, in fact, the subsidy is really necessary, and whether it does not arise out of inefficiency or out of one hundred and one other causes out of which it may arise, instead of out of the alleged cause of meeting some physical difficulty or economic circumstances?
I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has ever been in the position of a landlord and had tenants come to him to explain that they cannot pay the rent, and whether he has always found that everything they have said has been strictly accurate and in accordance with the facts, and that the cause of their misfortunes has always been the cause to which they attributed them, the weather or a bad season or something of

that sort. I conceive that any mining company would naturally say, "Oh, it is physical difficulties; we have got into rock and we want you to pay the rent while we get through the rock." Why should not the Coal Commission have this opportunity, if they are going to give the subsidy, to put someone in charge of the mine or to see that someone is in charge of the mine who is competent, they think, to carry on the business? It seems to me to be the most ordinary safeguard for cases of this kind, and exactly in accordance with the practice which has been followed in many other cases of property management for a great number of years.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Secretary for Mines, in attempting to reply on this Amendment, said some things which I think ought to be cleared up, because by the words he has spoken he has tied the hands of the Commission very substantially. Let me give to the House one or two cases. In general, we welcome this right of remission. We pleaded during the Committee stage that where the Commission thought they could save the life of a colliery by doing so, they should have the opportunity to remit. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman now says, "We will grant them that right but they must not interfere in the management of the mine or appoint a manager. If they do so they will be acting contrary to Clause 2, which says that they shall not engage in the business of coal-mining." I can conceive of cases in which that will prevent the Commission from doing really useful work. We all know of cases in which owners have pleaded physical difficulties or economic difficulties and in which costs have run up and collieries have become unremunerative. Very often these are small collieries with very limited resources as regards technical advice. They have probably to rely upon managers of limited experience.
Suppose a bank lends money to such a company. It does so on the condition that it will have the right to nominate a manager or to send in, as a consultant, a mining engineer of wide experience, who will be responsible to the bank. That consultant or manager goes in and revolutionises the working of the pit and makes it a success. That would not have happened had it not been for the fact


that the bank, with its larger resources, was able to provide the requisite technical advice and experience. The hon. Gentleman, however, says that the Commission must not do that. The Government seem to be frightened of the Commission having anything to do with the management of the mines and they are therefore tying up the Commission considerably in this respect. We only ask that the Commission, when they do grant a remission of this kind, should have the same right as a bank would have in similar circumstances. Why should a public body set up by Parliament to manage this industry in the interest of the nation have less rights than a private bank would have? The best job that the Commission can do is to assist colliery companies which get into difficulties, by providing for them technical advice which would be beyond their own resources.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: There are dangers in the Amendment which has been moved by the Minister unless the words proposed from this side are inserted in it. We have all had experience of the tricks to which mineowners resort in order to present their books in such a way as to give the impression of a loss when they are actually making money. As a result of this they show a debt which has to be wiped off before the miners are entitled to increases. We know the tricks which are resorted to in connection with ascertainments. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the Government have been very much disturbed and have been put to very much trouble in order to find ways and means of dealing with tax dodgers. We have heard the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving us the most woeful lamentations from that Box about the "Artful Dodgers" on the other side, and we have considerable correspondence in the Press at the present time on how to dodge taxes and whether it is desirable or otherwise. But here we are getting from the Minister a deliberate encouragement for a new piece of dodging, and with the skill that the mineowners have shown in the past, even the so-called good mineowners, for operating their accounts in such a way as always to get the main advantage, and with the fact that there are discussions in the "Times" and other newspapers on how to discover new methods of

dodging taxes, what could be better for the mineowners than that they should pay their taxes out of the rents?
I appeal to the Minister, as a serious man, to understand the danger that exists in this particular Amendment of his. It can easily be avoided. It can be avoided if the Commission has the necessary power, wherever there is a company that is incapable of paying its rent, to put someone there who can, on behalf of the Commission, examine into the whole of the pit and decide for the Commission over a period of time whether or not the deficit is well founded. If it is, then the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) can be put into operation, and the Commission can then add to the management—the right of appointing a manager will carry with it the right of seeing to it that the pit is properly managed—a mining engineer who thoroughly understands everything about the pit and who can bring it into proper working again. I therefore suggest that there could not be a more reasonable or a more desirable Amendment than the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and I appeal to the Government and the House to accept it.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and probably, in view of the overwhelming arguments that have been advanced in its favour, the Minister is now prepared to accept it. This is an extremely ordinary practice. It is nothing unusual, where a financial grant is made to any concern, for someone to be appointed to supervise the interests of those who have made the advance, or the subsidy, or the grant. I have had an illustration of that as a member of the Newcastle City Council. That council is a large owner of coal, which is sublet to various colliery companies in and about Newcastle. Almost the whole of the city is undermined with colliery workings, and what is known as Town Moor, an area of 1,100 acres, is being worked by two or three colliery companies.
Owing to the period of depression through which these firms have passed, an application was made recently for a reduction of rental to meet the heavy adverse balances which had been incurred in the finances of the coal companies.


The Estates and Property Committee of the corporation were instructed to look into the accounts to satisfy themselves, with their expert knowledge, whether any remission of rental should be granted. In due course a detailed financial statement of the position was submitted to the council, who consented to a reduction of rental. That was a perfectly normal business procedure. The result is that the city council during the period of the reduced rental can, if they wish, have a supervisory control over the organisation of the colliery company. All that we are

asking in this Amendment is that in similar circumstances—for the Commission will be the owner of the Newcastle coal in due course—the same procedure should be the law of the land. It is a normal business procedure and anything short of it will fail to protect the public interest in this matter.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 212.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[10.39 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consatt)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R, (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Mon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr, R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.



Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Gibson, R. (Greerock)
Paling, W.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bull, B. B.
Cross, R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crossley, A. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Burghley, Lord
Crowder, J. F. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butcher, H. W.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Culverwell, C. T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dawson, Sir P.


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Dodd, J. S


Beechman, N. A.
Christie, J. A.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Bernays, R. H
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Duggan, H. J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Eastwood, J. F.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Eckersley, P. T.


Bracken, B.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Emery, J. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.




Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Loftus, P. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Everard, W. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M, (Darwen)


Findlay, Sir E.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Foot, D. M.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Savery, Sir Servington


Furness, S. N.
McKie, J. H.
Scott, Lord William


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Seely, Sir H. M.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Selley, H. R.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Maitland, A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gledhill, G.
Mander, G, le M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Goldie, N. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crews)


Gretton, Col, Rt. Hon. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Spens, W. P.


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Guest, Hon. I, (Brecon and Radnor)
Morgan, R. H.
Storey, S.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Marris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Harbord, A.
Nall, Sir J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Touche, G. C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Owen, Major G-
Turton, R. H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peake, O.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peat, C. U.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Higgs, W. F.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Holdsworth, H.
Petherick, M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pilkington, R.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Hunter, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. H.
White, H. Graham


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wragg, H.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.



Levy, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—


Liddall, W. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Captain Hope and Major Sir


Lipson, D. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
James Edmondson.


Resolution agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Competence of the Commission to acquire associated minerals and rights.)

10.46 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 26, line 10, to leave out from "worked," to the first "is," in line 11, and to insert "in association with coal that."
During the Committe stage a point was made which it is the intention of the Amendment which I now move to cover. It dealt with the competence of the Commission to acquire certain rights. If they want to acquire in certain cases those minerals that have to be worked with the coal, they have the right to do so. We thought the wording of the Clause would be sufficient but my hon. Friend suggested that it might be made a little

wider. This relates of course only to minerals and rights which can be acquired by agreement and covers what may be worked in association with coal, without necessarily limiting it to the shaft or adit.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Saving for certain statutory rights.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert:
(1) The matters subject to which by virtue of Section four of this Act the vesting in the Commission of any coal, mine of coal, property or rights is to take effect, and the contract referred to in that Section for the sale of any coal, mine of coal, property or rights is to be deemed to have been made, shall include the following rights, that is to say:
pany by virtue of the provisions substituted by Part 11 of the Mines (Working Facilities

(a) any right vested m a railway com-


and Support) Act, 1923, for Sections seventy-eight to eight-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or by virtue of those Sections as originally enacted, any right vested in undertakers by virtue of Sections twenty-two to twenty-six of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and any right vested by virtue of those provisions or of those Sections respectively in any other person in a capacity corresponding to that of the company or undertakers thereunder;
(b) any right vested in a local authority by virtue of the Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers), Amendment Act, 1883; and
(c) any right to prevent or restrict the working of coal vested in the Crown or in any local authority, highway authority or statutory undertakers by virtue of any enactment or of any order having effect, with or without confirmation by Parliament, under any enactment;
and those rights shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as constituting or conferring any interest in the coal or mine in respect of which they are exercisable.
The first paragraph of Sub-section (1) of this Clause has been re-drafted in a new form, but it does not make any difference to the substance of it. It is intended to have exactly the same effect as what is printed in the Bill, that is to say, to make it clear that the property and rights which pass to the Commission do not include and also do not derogate from any statutory right of other statutory or public bodies, to prevent or restrict the working of coal. We hope it also covers the point which hon. Gentlemen have put down in an Amendment dealing with the railway companies.

Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

10.49 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after "shall," to insert "without affecting the generality of such words."
This Amendment is merely a matter of Drafting. We feel that this form of words
shall include the following rights, that is to say
and the specified rights set out, may possibly be held to be limited to those rights only. Obviously it is intended that

they should include a lot of other statutory rights as well. We thought it would be wiser to put in words to show that these are not mere words of limitation, but words of inclusion.

10.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind the generality of the words in Clause 4 (4), the actual words he put on the Paper are not so limited. My present view is that it is not necessary to have words of this kind, but I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is only a drafting point. If he will withdraw his Amendment we will undertake to look into it and see whether words of this kind ought to be inserted.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 36.—(Application of Part I to Crown and Duchy of Cornwall.)

10.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 29, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that paragraph (b) of Subsection (4) of Section three of this Act shall not bind the Crown as regards gold, gold ore, silver or silver ore, and accordingly the expressoon, 'coal' in this Part of this Act shall not in any case include those minerals or substances.
The Amendment is to cover a small point which, I am afraid, we overlooked at the earlier stage. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members interested in these technical matters that gold, gold ore, silver and silver ore are known as mines royal, and the property in them has been from time immemorial vested in the Crown as part of the Prerogative of the Crown. As the Bill is at present drawn the Prerogative of the Crown is entirely unaffected. Under Clause 3 (4, b), which deals with subsidiary minerals which are comprised in a lease, the terms of that paragraph suggest that if an owner of coal has acquired from the Crown a licence to get gold, and then has included his right to work the coal and his licence to get the gold in the same lease, then the gold would pass to the Commission.


The object of this Amendment is to prevent that happening and safeguard the Prerogative of the Crown in the one respect in which it might otherwise be affected by the Bill.

10.54 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the second "ore," to the end of line 4.
This Amendment is really in order to ascertain whether the concluding words of the Minister's Amendment are necessary. Without them any question of binding the Crown is entirely excluded. But if there did happen to be such a case as the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned I do not know why the leasehold interest should not be acquired with the coal. That would not be affecting the Crown at all. The safeguards would be quite sufficient without the concluding words which I propose to omit.

10.55 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Here, again, the view that I took was that these words necessarily followed upon the first part of the Amendment, and were necessary in order to bring the definition of coal in the various parts of the Act into accord with what has been provided by the first part of the Amendment. I will study with care what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because I think he may have raised a point which possibly I have not considered, and, if it should be necessary to make any modification, I will certainly do so.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 33, line 38, after "power," to insert:
(including an option or right of pre-emption and.
This Amendment deals with a matter which was referred to earlier this evening, and makes it clear that a person who has an option has an interest, and can come in with the freeholder.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 2, after "be," insert "or in, on or over the rents and profits thereof."—[The Attorney-General.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 34, line 5, after "be," to insert:
and (in the case of any coal or mine of coal comprised in a manor) otherwise than in respect only of a right belonging to a person (other than a person in whom the coal or mine is vested) to withhold consent to the working of the coal or mine or to the working thereof in such a way as to withdraw support from any land within the manor in which the person to whom such right belongs is interested, such right being a right which is saved by paragraph five of the Twelfth Schedule to the Law of Property Act, 1922, and subject to which by the custom of the manor the coal or mine is held by the person in whom the same is vested.
In 1922, when the House decided to abolish copyhold rights in this country, it did not face up to the problem of dealing with the rights of copyholders in minerals, and so it preserved the situation as regards the lord of the manor and copyhold tenants exactly as it was in regard to the land which was then enfranchised, and the common situation in most of the manors of this country is that, while the coal is vested in the lord of the manor, the copyholders have a right to withhold consent to its being worked, or to its being worked in such a way as to withdraw support. As the Bill is drafted, it appears that the right of copyhold tenants to withhold consent to the working of minerals, or to their being worked except on certain terms, is a power which comes within the definition of an interest, and would, therefore, entitle every one of these ex-copyhold tenants to come in and make some sort of claim. They have had no payment whatever, because it is included in the global figure for the copyhold tenants—

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Spens: With respect, I think that that is so. So far as the ordinary situation is concerned, where coal is a tack lease, the ordinary process is that the lease is subject to the working lessee getting the consent of the copyhold tenant beneath whose tenement he desires to work the coal. Therefore, we suggest that, in order that the whole of the valuation of the coal under these manors may not be held up for months by these, in many cases, large numbers of persons, coming to make their claims, they should be excluded in the first instance from being regarded as persons who have an interest. The hon. and learned Gentle-


men opposite may not agree, but I want the House to realise what the result would be if they are. How is anybody going to separate the value of the coal belonging to lords of the manor and that of the copyhold tenants? The right of persons to withhold their consent is going to hold up valuations in all these cases.
Just as Parliament refused to face up to a similar problem of compensation in 1927, so it appears to us that Parliament is going to refuse to tackle this problem now, and is simply going to leave it to the courts. The result will be that every single sum of money will have to be paid into court, and the court will have to find what each of these copyhold tenants and the lord of the manor is going to get out of it. That will hold up the matter for a long time. Our suggestion—a perfectly simple suggestion—is that the only person who shall be regarded as interested is the person in whom the coal is vested—not entitled to claim a fee-simple interest but only entitled to claim an interest for the purposes of this Clause. That will make the thing much more simple. There may be some better method, but at any rate, at the present time the question is not being faced. All the share of the global figure which is to be paid in respect of coal under these manors will have to be paid into court and will be wrangled over for many years to come, unless something is done to meet the position.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend during the Committee stage I moved an Amendment, not in the same form but of similar intent. I think I succeeded in explaining to myself what it meant, but it is a most complicated matter, and, having listened to explanations from many people more expert than I am, I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend will make a substantial simplification in administration. I am satisfied that Part I of the Bill will be exceedingly complicated in administration; if it is the work of all, we must do all we can to simplify it.

11.4 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am all in favour of simplification, too. Why not cut out all

the, compensation? It would simplify the matter enormously. All that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested is that a small, and perhaps not very wealthy, section of the community should be completely expropriated, without any compensation. The hon. Member shakes his head. He cannot know what the Amendment means. The hon. and learned Member will agree with me.

Mr. Spens: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the present position is that the lord of the manor negotiates the lease, and the lessee gets the consent. If it has any value at all the lessee pays a small sum of money for the consent. The Commission will be in exactly the same position.

Sir S. Cripps: If that is the idea of the Amendment, it is even worse than the other. That will leave the position that the lessee, before he could work, must find every copyholder in order to get consent.

Mr. Spens: That is the present position.

Sir S. Cripps: That will make it worse, and I hope that the Government will refuse the Amendment.

11.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of simplification. No doubt there might be simplification, but the Amendment in effect would deprive a number of copyholders of rights in futuro. As I read the Amendment, it would exclude the right of a copyholder, whose right is solely one of withholding consent, to bargain. In so far as the Amendment deals with the case of copyholders, who are, of course, outside the Bill, they have no interest in coal, and therefore they stay where they are. There is the question as to whether, if a copyholder's right is that of withholding consent to the working of coal, that should be regarded as a partial right to possession of the coal, or should be treated, as the Amendment treats it, as a mere right to withhold consent. In our view, a copyholder has the right to withhold his consent, quite apart from the right in coal, and I cannot see why, if he has a certain right under the existing law, both in respect of coal being worked now and coal worked in futuro, he should not be in the same position as the lord of the


manor or the freeholder and should not be entitled to such proportion of the global sum to which they are entitled.
My hon. and learned Friend says that none of these payments were included in the global sum, but I do not think that is right. In some cases there is a separate payment to the copyholder and in some cases it is an arrangement between the copyholder and the lord of the manor, but in both cases the figure is included in the global sum. If it is an arrangement between the lord of the manor and the copyholder it would be included in the global sum. I agree that difficulties may arise but they do not arise out of this Bill. They arise out of the fact that copyholders' rights go back deep into the past and are not easy of precise valuation. One has to remember that in the past whenever a lease has been negotiated under which coal has been worked in a manner subject to copyhold, the lord of the manor and the copyholder have been able to agree generally as to their proportionate rights in the royalty to be paid by the colliery owner. I think my hon. and learned Friend took a rather gloomy view of the relations between the lord of the manor and the copyholder and the prospect of their being able to come to an agreement as to how the compensation should be divided between them. As far as justice is concerned I suggest that the Bill is on the right lines in giving to the copyholder, if he has an interest in the coal, the right to come into compensation and to get such proportion of the freehold value of the coal as he is entitled to claim.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 34, line 9, leave out from "under-lease," to "and," in line 11, and insert:
a tenancy and an agreement for a lease, under-lease, or tenancy (but not an option to take a lease, under-lease, or tenancy).

In line 17, after the first "licence," insert:
(whether personal or by way of profit à prendre) that confers a right to work and carry away coal or a right to use a mine of coal for a coal-mining purpose.

In line 23, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 28.—[The Attorney-General.]

11.13 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 35, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person shall not be deemed to be carrying on the business of coalmining unless a substantial part of his business consists of working, getting, and carrying away coal.

This Amendment deals with a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in the Committee stage. We think that these words are an improvement on what was originally in the Bill, and make more clear what is meant by a person who is carrying on the business of coal-mining.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Duty of the Commission to reduce number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in interests of efficiency.)

Amendment proposed: In page 39, line 10, leave out "said Act," and to insert "Coal Mines Act, 1930."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH LAND COURT [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with regard to the tenure of office and superannuation of members of the Scottish Land Court, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of fixed retiring allowances to members other than the Chairman, or of the expenditure incurred in the application to such members of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, in like manner as if these Acts had applied prior to their appointment.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Kidsgrove Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 14th day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Basingstoke Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of East Retford, which was presented on the 15th

day of March and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn—"[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'clock.